IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 242BE12EBB4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:27:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 InFbyrJ7ra-B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33AD112EBB0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id w11HRS0p050375; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:27:28 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.172]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id w11HRQaG050353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:27:26 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efac::8988:efac) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:27:25 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1347.000; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:27:25 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
CC: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
Thread-Topic: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHTmzqNkuf0FCoeaU2KIGEqD3UNlqOP2TwAgAAPNwD//9LbIIAAiZcA//96fWCAAI+gAP//ejsw
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:27:25 +0000
Message-ID: <c3357bf41dab4c268039fa8fe463bc8f@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <91953634-9B4A-405B-AB36-FBB2079A0A40@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311125400.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <91E4B0D5-BB27-4961-883B-0774729F1A83@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr23G+rz7woT1K504UEb2=sQGJd2p_CcQogLA5BbmTomZA@mail.gmail.com> <32FB86D8-235A-434F-A20C-6624FB7C3CE2@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr1oTmBOQR7YJnJV3S9_NG54sA-+phzRMwPT5qQcF1nKPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311327410.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr04NV0+r1V1XnOo9XUu2GF_RiVPN6pqM0pJ0a68=mC9Zw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311402350.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2cTdK+kkojHa5qPOO4VyT=jW1pmJmf=uXSrdif404iQQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802010954270.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr28iU=jCBv7dy4D8gyeL=uB5hFu-YhGOKPiih9sykZ1GQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011138010.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <658076313dd5488080a596717d00c19b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011733380.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <d9091a6779aa47cc905a1fdb76480b84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011805250.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011805250.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YdITgfxiwAwYs6qTrHQsOb7-CF4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:27:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:11 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
> 
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > I don't think you will get much support. It just isn't needed when all the relay
> > has to do is snoop the IA_PD's and do the appropriate route manipulations.
> 
> It sounds so easy, yet there are so many ways vendors get it wrong. Some
> examples:
> 
> Implementor takes for granted that there will never be duplication of CIDs
> seen on different interfaces.
> 
> Implementor thinks it's a good idea to only answer single CID per
> interface.
> 
> Implementor thinks it's ok to proxy-answer questions and not even ask the
> DHCPv6 server.
> 
> Implementor thinks it's ok to not relay answers from DHCPv6 server that it
> hasn't seen a question for (or that it forgot about it).
> 
> These are just some issues (not exhaustive list) that I have had in the
> past 6 months with one multi-billion USD "leading network equipment
> vendor".

Here's you:

  "DHCPv6 PD relay route assignment is broken"

Here's me:

  [ Running code ]

> Yes, I hate DHCPv6-PD.

I am trying to understand this and failing. Is it the way the acronym sounds
as it rolls of your tongue? Is it a loathing of the many  public domain and
proprietary implementations? Do you think there is something flawed
with the protocol messaging?

I have also shown how IPv6ND and DHCPv6PD can be combined into a
unified service for all autoconfiguration needs. Even if it were to be pure
IPv6ND, though, there would still need to be a control messaging protocol
for route lifetime management that does pretty much the same thing that
DHCPv6 control messaging already does. So, why not just use DHCPv6PD?

Thanks - Fred

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email