IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 31 May 2011 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDC3E06B9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lIeghMvTyNlF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A6DE06AE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 538D59C; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:28:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514B09A; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:28:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:28:01 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
In-Reply-To: <m1QRL7I-0001h2C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105311225350.13754@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com> <BANLkTinByCkcvd6=wLE6=9h1xLX16AhPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <201105232111.p4NLBScJ013180@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20110524072631.737ee12c@opy.nosense.org> <3044C560-F46C-477A-BD87-DF252F689FAB@equinux.de> <m1QR93e-0001IXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <62797F6E-20DF-4038-A29A-1FDB0A94C678@equinux.de> <m1QRL7I-0001h2C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:28:08 -0000

On Tue, 31 May 2011, Philip Homburg wrote:

> No, ND is more clever than that. All traffic between prefixes that are 
> on-link goes directly between the hosts. Even when the prefix is 
> off-link it is possible for the router the send a redirect ICMP to cause 
> further traffic to be directly between the hosts.

I hope there is a recommendation in the standard to have a knob to turn 
this off? With security functions like forced-forwarding and alike, I'd 
definitely not want the hosts to try to communicate directly between each 
other.

I was under the impression that if I don't announce an on-link prefix at 
all, and just do DHCPv6, there hosts would not try to communicate with 
each other directly (ie there is no routing to support this function). 
You're saying my presumption is not true?

Why would a host try to do ND for something that is not on-link according 
to its routing table?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email