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

Agreed ... I had used Figure 1 but that isn’t that useful — that packet is flowing in the uplink direction. Perhaps we should just say “DHCP-PD client facing interface”?

- Bernie

> On Oct 14, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:44 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> If not, perhaps we just say:
>> 
>> R-4
>> To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable policy to drop traffic received from an uplink interface as follows:
> 
> I'm not sure 'from an uplink interface' makes sense. In the case of a
> routing loop caused by an amnesiac DHCP-PD client it would be a
> downstream interface.
> The scenario when such traffic arrives from an uplink interface is
> 'the uplink router believes the prefix is delegated to the client but
> the relay does not have a route pointing to the client so it sends
> traffic back' - so more likely 'an amnesiac relay' case.
> 
>> For point-to-point links, when the packet's ingress and egress interfaces match. For multi-access links, when the packet's ingress and egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC addresses match. An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to
>> destination) error message MAY be sent as per [RFC4443], section 3.1.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
>> 
>> - Bernie
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ianfarrer@gmx.com <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 9:16 AM
>> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for all of the discussion on this. We’ve reworked the requirement as follows:
>> 
>> R-4
>> To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable policy to drop client traffic as follows:  For point-to-point links, when the packet's ingress and egress interfaces match. For multi-access links, when the packet's ingress and egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC addresses match. An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to
>> destination) error message MAY be sent back to the client.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>> 
>>>> On 9. Oct 2020, at 17:41, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think there is confusion re: the scenario we are talking about.
>>>> I've attached the diagram for the case which concerns me.
>>>> So:
>>>> - The Relay R has an interface eth0 connected to a switch S.
>>>> - Devices A and B are connected to the same switch and using R as a
>>>> default gateway.
>>>> - The prefix 2001:db8::/56 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.
>>> 
>>> a friendly amendment to your example to aid in human comprehension:
>>>    } - The prefix 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.
>>>    }  - R installs a route for 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 towards A via eth0.
>>> 
>>>> - The device B (which has an address NOT from the delegated prefix,
>>>> but from another /64 assigned to that common link, let's sat
>>>> 2001:db8:cafe::/64) sends a packet to an address from the delegated
>>> 
>>> now, my brain can more clearly see that 2001:db8:cafe::/64 is not
>>> within 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64, while I had to use a few extra brain
>>> cells to see that it wasn't in that ::/56 :-)
>>> 
>>>> What I'd expect to happen (with DHCP-PD or without - e.g. if R has a
>>>> static route towards A, not a dynamic route produced by PD):
>>>> - the packet is sent to A. Well, if A does not have a route to
>>>> 2001:db8::42 then indeed a routing loop might happen. But if A does
>>>> have a route, the packet will be delivered.
>>> 
>>>> What seems to be required by R4:
>>>> - R detects that the packet is received via eth0 and needs to be sent
>>>> back to eth0. R4 seems to require such packets to be dropped.
>>>> So if B would never be able to communicate to any address in the
>>>> delegated prefix, right?
>>> 
>>>> Am I missing anything?
>>> 
>>> I think that you got it right.
>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps the missing piece of the rule is don’t send it back to where it came from, based on link layer addresses (or link if point-to-point).
>>> 
>>>> Yes. If R4 was saying 'drop the packet if it comes from the same
>>>> link-layer address you are going to send it back' - it would make
>>>> total sense. But I don't think routers do *that*.
>>> 
>>> Yes, if we made the check on L2 address, then it would work.
>>> And I agree that routers are exactly doing that.
>>> 
>>> I think that it also works if B is a router with additional interfaces
>>> downstream, unless there are multiple paths.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>>          Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry