Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I think there is confusion re: the scenario we are talking about. I've
    > attached the diagram for the case which concerns me.
    > So:
    > - The Relay R has an interface eth0 connected to a switch S.
    > - Devices A and B are connected to the same switch and using R as a
    > default gateway.
    > - The prefix 2001:db8::/56 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.

a friendly amendment to your example to aid in human comprehension:
     } - The prefix 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.
     }  - R installs a route for 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 towards A via eth0.

    > - The device B (which has an address NOT from the delegated prefix,
    > but from another /64 assigned to that common link, let's sat
    > 2001:db8:cafe::/64) sends a packet to an address from the delegated

now, my brain can more clearly see that 2001:db8:cafe::/64 is not
within 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64, while I had to use a few extra brain cells to
see that it wasn't in that ::/56 :-)

    > What I'd expect to happen (with DHCP-PD or without - e.g. if R has a
    > static route towards A, not a dynamic route produced by PD):
    > - the packet is sent to A. Well, if A does not have a route to
    > 2001:db8::42 then indeed a routing loop might happen. But if A does
    > have a route, the packet will be delivered.

    > What seems to be required by R4:
    > - R detects that the packet is received via eth0 and needs to be sent
    > back to eth0. R4 seems to require such packets to be dropped.
    > So if B would never be able to communicate to any address in the
    > delegated prefix, right?

    > Am I missing anything?

I think that you got it right.

    >> Perhaps the missing piece of the rule is don’t send it back to where it came from, based on link layer addresses (or link if point-to-point).

    > Yes. If R4 was saying 'drop the packet if it comes from the same
    > link-layer address you are going to send it back' - it would make
    > total sense. But I don't think routers do *that*.

Yes, if we made the check on L2 address, then it would work.
And I agree that routers are exactly doing that.

I think that it also works if B is a router with additional interfaces
downstream, unless there are multiple paths.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide