IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 D527B3A0820 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u6gQ4Kk6aHEX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91013A0808 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id t18so3744973ilo.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=rmSAIrLe0UHo8ExZj0Sdkc2F9/JRanetF3UvLJn7aOH56FPzIeA/g1yn8+0FT295jT Ukc8h/vCgL0Mbe/4YW/hZhOTZVnI647rblHSa9/i1tCXFrmeIx7kdBfMfrm0z696jau0 2xVa1dYRhdQ/oinTnH+p1DufLBEjYkUl0qdtCI75bkMIDwr4ee5UzdcAZqiwZwyRuXhC PHJhcR6TqO/KpRB6ly8InqxgLi+WNW++rtf/l75SplCTJNXdb9M0hSjH6OIFEG7Iq4E/ p4OA3GIs7FyXfqOwxgt0tdfkM50reBUdb94k+zWBgHt9VaaboVK8gHbd6GTWcJe9otHl ANLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=tQDjUPSGThOD191EC5P5Kc0jIR55t2i8REBWMgD2XLqJLlA4+tDRK3mq+RVEIAp3r6 ilgL11kv6aIPbu/XBWhb5rnoKR4AJ/Jq5jLY+DMerOU7T6ZRayeSMyC4q3/BGsgMxf1R phadMiGeWpDZ29nAEnmnnl0pHav1bkl01hWw+vVFA6xZuLkMxzTCjVciskaRAFxnJguS OyZ2GvovM9eAcfjz8dWNFr1NrzdvrmsKPfeAzsDxJHaPrmUZlabzK3ZCB9AziQrsfOXF OO5p3CHmchomfIxYSyIBvk+ncBN11uTBKW/yIyXeDJ6ynFhcNA3jNgnNqLqxGS7jmX8I VflQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532VGvFFfeFC8So2nb2iabQwY1TyFOlVa+hBC0rcxu1ywv9eVDbL 6hF8aeaZN+sDSSs6ayyVzK+Avg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8krYjOWK3aBEIRHhQ+kKeJoiztfFSFqHeb/yWtWFZFcOP+6NTchJ4ImV3l3gfeov+GmWW2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:e05:: with SMTP id a5mr3505625ilk.96.1602874277939; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q83sm3497868ili.16.2020.10.16.11.51.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <EE880685-1C83-4E60-BE50-24172B0690D1@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45729ABD-7594-4187-80B9-05941E489AED"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.82\))
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:51:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com> <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QV6f2K3b74sdyQ4ri8Jl6XAPEMo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:51:21 -0000

On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:30 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it should never forward a packet received on the WAN interface back out the WAN interface.

It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t have a rule that it should never forward a packet received on the LAN interface back to the LAN interface.

I wonder what’s happening in practice. We have quite a lot of devices in the world doing DHCPv6 PD. How is it that we aren’t seeing reports of routing loops? Are they just humming away silently, consuming LAN bandwidth, or are routers already doing the right thing?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email