Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02
Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Wed, 17 April 2024 11:43 UTC
Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
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 65BE0C14F60D for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Y55umXc1igvQ for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (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 1E2A5C14F604 for <snac@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 43HBhj3k036993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <snac@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:43:46 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 43HBhSRj020358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:43:28 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 43HBhSnr020357; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:43:28 +0200
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:43:28 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: SNAC ML <snac@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20240417114328.GA18918@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
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> <CAPt1N1mXSPR=7XwyobZhOSZppFohjJd-8DirqM6QFYihQXbvDQ@mail.gmail.com> <DU0P190MB1978F520A848CB9F32AA2385FD082@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAPt1N1=c5_GHXqqGFzTKrRdg9x1wOgq7Vw=Q0+FsyTHEgSQS8A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=c5_GHXqqGFzTKrRdg9x1wOgq7Vw=Q0+FsyTHEgSQS8A@mail.gmail.com>
Author: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/Z4kCSe1Z0o2ISOmUEYL3mPFJ-xM>
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, 17 Apr 2024 11:43:37 -0000
Hi, back in the day, introducing rogue routers (i.e., Windows home systems with their default behavior back then) into a managed WLAN using DHCPv6 resulted in client-side problems. The clients would alternate between DHCPv6 address assignment and SLAAC for the rogue prefix(es). Today, RA Guard should help. It might interfere with SNAC, though. ;-) Br, Erik On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:22:52PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > Hm. The consensus that seemed to arise in discussion in the room(s) is that > we can't really fix this, and it doesn't make sense to try. That is, we > shouldn't track the M&O bits sent by other routers. If they send > inconsistent bits, too bad, the host stack already has to deal with that > anyway. > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:15 AM Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> > wrote: > > > > is the current requirement that the M&O bits be consistent between RAs > > actually a good idea? And separately, is it necessary? > > > > > > > > To get it 100% consistent all the time seems to make a solution complex > > (as our past discussions about reboot corner cases show). It would need a > > distributed consensus algorithm. > > > > > > > > One simpler solution is > > > > 1 - copy/mirror the latest values advertised by a non-stub-router, if any > > > > 2 - when a stub router boots/reboots, first send an RS to get > > non-stub-routers on the link to respond to see their M/O flags, if any > > (this RS is anyway needed after startup, to know whether existing on-link > > prefixes are “suitable” in the SNAC sense). > > > > 3 - if no regular routers are found (only SNAC stub routers) – then > > advertise M&O flags with value ‘0’ . This may conflict with other stub > > routers that advertise ‘1’ – but only for a limited time. > > > > (Eventually these stub routers will switch back to ‘0’ or to the > > RA-advertised value, if such a non-stub-router RA ever shows up again in > > the future) > > > > > > > > Agree with your 3 questions but I don’t know answers. Btw what does > > “DHCPv6 is wanted” mean here – that the client or the higher layer > > controlling this client gets a sudden instruction or preference for > > obtaining a DHCPv6 based address/prefix/information ? > > > > > > > > Esko > > > > > > > > *From:* Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2024 08:07 > > *To:* Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> > > *Cc:* Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>; snac@ietf.org; 6MAN < > > 6man@ietf.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of > > draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02 > > > > > > > > [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
- [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-s… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Esko Dijk
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Esko Dijk
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Esko Dijk
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Mark Smith
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Erik Auerswald
- Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-h… Ole Troan