Re: RFC7084

Ole Troan <> Mon, 09 December 2013 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989751AE5D2; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdX6LbJXHJP1; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE531AE57C; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:02:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANc8plKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwe6IYEzFnSCJQEBBAF5EAtGVwaIDwbAcxePEAeDIIETA5AxmXaDKjs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,860,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="1928348"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2013 22:02:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB9M24Al011101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:02:05 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D967E5EA-30E8-401F-B57A-D58D98FF2474"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: RFC7084
From: Ole Troan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:02:03 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Sander Steffann <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: V6 Ops List <>, 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:02:16 -0000

>> Not sure I should sent this one to DHCPv6 WG or the global IETF v6, so feel free to forward it if needed.

this is a product of the v6ops working group, so probably the discussion belongs there.

>> Last week, RFC7084 got posted.  I did already post a message on a rather badly phrased req (a SHOULD one regarding “long-enough”, but bumped into the next one today (this one being a lot worse!!).
>> “”
>> WAA-6:   If the IPv6 CE router receives a Router Advertisement
>>            message (described in [RFC4861]) with the M flag set to 1,
>>            the IPv6 CE router MUST do DHCPv6 address assignment
>>            (request an IA_NA option).
>> “”
>> I’m not sure who came up with this one, but this is really a no-go.
>> So, according to this req, the DHCPv6 client must request an ia_na option if an M=1 is being received on his link ???  I might have understood it all wrong, but as far as I know, M=1 is not linked directly to ia_na, ia_pd is enough on its own, no ??
> Actually the other way around: M=1 is linked to ia_na but not to ia_pd. A CPE always does ia_pd, regardless of the M flag, but the ia_na is only requested when M=1.

the text is written so that there does not have to be any binding between RA processing and the DHCP state machine.
a CPE can simply ignore the O/M flags, and always request an IA_NA.

>> So, the CPE is expected to change its DHCPv6 client configuration based upon receiving an RA with this M=1 content ?
> Yep, that's the meaning :-)

or it can ignore it, see above.

>> I’m very curious on the replies now, but this seems really be going the wrong way.  You can launch a CPE which either listen to RA or not, and bound accordingly, however, listen + bind + force ia_na looks a bit too much to me.
> You always have to listen to RA, otherwise you won't have your default gateway. If you don't want a global address on the CPE WAN link (assuming that A=0 in the prefix option, but it doesn't have to be) you could ignore the M=1 flag and not do ia_na.