Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 20 March 2024 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65339C1CAF31 for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1bXCMmJ5V07t for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD21C17A743 for <snac@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-78a2093cd44so28280885a.0 for <snac@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1710918480; x=1711523280; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vvYX6gy79B2SAWOUNZ+1Q8mBFvNGjxE3lFDW2PGelMI=; b=LIYd4E5Mi27NaQO1v4dghteh4Bq4SJvvFp1tgaMw4m6TWFT53xR8WTUq9J0gTl+B2W Z/NZR7RfctoeAt1J4QfIGhz30lcyOzh62ZQlMYfGqkU1imTY9Bys8alITXR5QVqteN0X ATrKF4mdw4NBQ97Y0H79iHw8VxQwaqqIrAwGGSI2bTE+9P3D8iB3rXmQY0tkn4z7a9fW +JZsaIH2+F/wR9tK1aH8hB5nPV71AznUzt6ZHdKd2utwIV4mr8l/LCoVLnMAuu8NurKq lYqwklctq81hI/z4ubDtVbQPIFl5hQo41jFM//nnvFuoI+WBDyuq7tgo4ml7T3AhpMfH WCbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710918480; x=1711523280; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vvYX6gy79B2SAWOUNZ+1Q8mBFvNGjxE3lFDW2PGelMI=; b=XCsOIyOjTJTv6nGl3mbIV12rgGtZszHpcZq7o12HHJunInTetQEKKBbknfAmPSbj0n eV5XXAMkHR4ObzjbsqUc96FuX54MDRcwsIZAoI3kcXGSA0cNFjK16ot98ynf7bs67s3v se/ptlUrJwcVaq5wKEfPSS9UkTxSOVz0b6nAw2YPfHTkqQF2Pd0yR+MJWLOp9M3sb9Zf aRLr/BIrtJ11DB0GkT2N4KuyknhnxoS6Xa5SYKETwbkIZ7emOjYapJFfJgAuGSIkASbv c8Dy7hGGcWsGLaimRsMIHGrGf+6qfCryultrz+Xpf0erNf4qc8V4w7CKnFMSK/tQZi3l mIGg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXEiwW4ZAk8IQVjmh1Y/gFcTrUa1uttJNJdM7hfCS/w8TtRzpDvn7VFm68B5eTH/op1Lt2S5iDJ/jeQAbJW
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwgR98UEs3bttB0b61gHKjn0rJfVnzUhI/JiEPxRDU3rRY1V5eN II/F5/FJNmJrZGPVIxIOnJLR0UbSEq0xlZLcSHQJYFaUikLnIKg3OG0XID3KlX1j/ERTofEDAk9 PeZc4ZcfMTIjq4GFBwt+GmzuIRtc1fGO46wz9TdfHy+jdKw51qlfKYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFHsvUlkxJU82i7iv8mrHcnvKaoCDYUxh7bLw9SER9gmfBGrqCyLvu4ZHCk3OJgZuZQou1t4QRoBgawZedZbK0=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:450e:0:b0:696:2e31:283d with SMTP id k14-20020ad4450e000000b006962e31283dmr5909808qvu.43.1710918480123; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D993DD7C-4133-4C9A-B9BD-D38A37CC8A4F@gmail.com> <DU0P190MB1978A6D7BBCE565E0C9018F7FD2C2@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <DU0P190MB1978D701C90820D8DB97CCEDFD332@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46119458-8B82-4DE0-A5BC-C58F64436FDB@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46119458-8B82-4DE0-A5BC-C58F64436FDB@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:07:24 +1000
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mXSPR=7XwyobZhOSZppFohjJd-8DirqM6QFYihQXbvDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, "snac@ietf.org" <snac@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f76f806141240e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/QN1Wh46UMSvER29MZKDdxpwydu4>
Subject: Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02
X-BeenThere: snac@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac/>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:08:02 -0000

[Adding 6man to this discussion for reasons that will shortly become
apparent]

Suresh and I had a conversation offline about persisting the M&O bits
advertised by other routers. Suresh accumulated quite a few battle scars
over this back in the day. I think we could solve this problem, but just
the stub router bit isn't going to be enough to solve it. And then the
question came up: is the current requirement that the M&O bits be
consistent between RAs actually a good idea? And separately, is it
necessary?

I don't think we can answer that here, but it might be worth trying to get
an answer to that before proceeding with a complicated solution. At present
at least Apple BRs do not in fact reflect the M&O bits received from
infrastructure routers, and we haven't had any bug reports as a result.
That's not a particularly good indication, but I think it's worth
investigating what DHCPv6 IA_NA and IA_PD and Information-Request clients
actually do when the M&O bits go away.

There are three questions I would ask:
1. What happens if the M&O bits are advertised, and a DHCPv6 client of any
of the three types starts, and then a new RA is seen with the relevant
bit(s) clear?
2. What happens if the M&O bits are not advertised, but DHCPv6 is wanted,
and then an RA shows up with the M&O bits set. Does DHCPv6 start?
3. What happens if the we get an RA with the M&O bits set, and then an RA
with them clear, and /then/ an indication that DHCPv6 is wanted?

Some of these questions may not make sense in all situations, but I think
this is the complete set of questions. Suresh's and my belief is that once
a client has started doing DHCPv6, it's going to continue to do so even if
it sees an RA with the relevant bit(s) clear. But it would be good to test
that theory.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:12 PM Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2024, at 11:03 AM, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> > PS:
> >
> >> What the draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag could do is just refer to this
> one, perhaps?
> >
> > My remark may not be fully clear. What I meant here is that the sentence
> stating that the values of M and O are mirrored, could refer to this
> behavior with a sentence like "as defined in [draft-ietf-snac-simple]."
> > This avoids explaining the mirroring in much detail within
> draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag. And it directly answers the question the
> reader may have on how this works in detail.
>
> Thanks for that clarification Esko. That will certainly clarify the
> intended behavior for this draft. I do have further concerns regarding race
> conditions copying bits between stub routers, but that is not a concern for
> this draft.
>
> Regards
> Suresh
>
>