IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 09 October 2020 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 5EA033A0B59; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 00:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PiaR3EE1JDy0; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 00:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E993A0B5F; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 00:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2121:341:3cd5:595d:f1ae:ca64:910e] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:341:3cd5:595d:f1ae:ca64:910e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A0814E11AEC; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 07:43:10 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:43:07 +0200
Message-Id: <36C7513E-BDF1-4189-89F6-5BB46797FB99@employees.org>
References: <87h7r3hmuk.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <87h7r3hmuk.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A393)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/S1GFrLqubplBn9PAoc0lUhm9SLU>
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, 09 Oct 2020 07:43:13 -0000


> On 9 Oct 2020, at 09:37, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote:
> 
> I don't know anything about hardware implementations or scaling in
> general, but this seems easy to implement using the Linux kernel routing
> facilities:
> 
> ip -6 rule add pref 1234 iif if_A to prefix_A blackhole
> 
> where 'if_A' is the interface connecting A to R and 'prefix_A' is the
> prefix assigned to A.

I think the premise here is that it’s a multiaccess interface. So wouldn’t that rule break traffic from B to A? If the premise here is that both customer A and B are on the same interface. 

If it was one l3 interface per customer then sure it’s easy. 

Cheers 
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email