Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5D7120273 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=QJMmiWME; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=mD65JnU8
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 Deeb88TTFNsL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3ADF1207FD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1572406510; x=1573616110; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hkgpXpLhYHIfNH4QwpI+cQTaCIn1Mka9tX46fATqBMs=; b=QJMmiWMEWCTdtNKcWd8Tr7m88wQupE+Uf2y47vxcdEawOP06xSLUtQ0H Bj8U5Uk+Q3ANmc3MoDbQLRubvaxuyvj+W1qn+f036g5kH/PJ6tPY2Rmpa dmMSBfUtGRI4jh4ykFCYNdUN4z+tJ0dhninYn9x7wmblKXE4os9SI5/1M 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A9jNS1xHUAsh1d5MY0eRmoZ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w3Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNV?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeTjbS0kFexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AKAAD/A7ld/5NdJa1kGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFpBQEBAQELAYFKUAVsWCAECyqEKINGA4Rahhu?= =?us-ascii?q?CXolVjhaBLhSBEANUCQEBAQwBARgLCgIBAYFMgnQCF4NCJDQJDgIDCQEBBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBBQRthTcMhVEBAQEBAgEBARAREQwBASwLAQsEAgEIEQMBAgECAhkKAwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAh8GCxQBAgEFCAIEAQ0FIoMAAYJGAw4gAQIMqBwCgTiIYHWBMoJ+AQEFgTQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BgRSCSw0LghcDBoEOKAGMEBiBQD+BOB+CTD6CG0cBAQIBgSsBEgEJLYJ5MoI?= =?us-ascii?q?sj3udMkEKgiSHEIoShA0bgjyXII4/gUCGbIIRjw4CBAIEBQIOAQEFgVI5Z3F?= =?us-ascii?q?wFTsqAYJBUBAUgwaDc4UUhT90AYEni1+CMAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,245,1569283200"; d="scan'208";a="653860130"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Oct 2019 03:35:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9U3Z8f3029391 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:35:08 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:35:08 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:35:07 -0500
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:35:07 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=HWFoeZd5SeDIYbg5s6iIxnunAWetgHPWAyx8ZGIFJWeITPJ4uJvLlO/sRgxJCnTJGQuQcxGShnCjJeHPofUbre9R9WM9NoC4nQcMjSIQkhclfnx/NFGrdL7UbqLiem945dlMnkgQszwlYzVTYk7nfYDUB6FJj4Chh6OxT+psaQhnq+AzRDTXe03WvceBGvZQL8S/zyIrr3GNVM/JB73Nz5n3Z17f6i4ZjD4SDX7Fmy8zFwt2cHTwB8WA1RjtRrgM7Pr5WjFQKZIsc6ShF197z/SNdfIkLjKAXLZEMVlyjlUQDg/ihwJqHF8y57ofAoHDJt1h6OXagKWU82u1eW1New==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hkgpXpLhYHIfNH4QwpI+cQTaCIn1Mka9tX46fATqBMs=; b=E+kqEL17dBPtPxvdfzlnKKmaa2tIIg+LlypfIoHfw26PJwaFNCLxoJsN1k5FJ2kUBmkKVOkWY93d08Nc6moOZy8jBPFX0npQVRrlh4+gTiy6l94WqD2QKbg5nqH3/SmYn2LSM69mF3jY44kGN07xV+Ig1eQspEQS4LYZHdD3hn9UHFpGXDkbiOKZBVHstIM9NUgmXUPHCIbgj0u1WQlDGlKkrbTmK/uXGujFgzaMDLULh/qJ2AgI1P9J95m0yD6c+onTJ+In7YFAVpx2heY00KB9/FYM5EdAja9ggmw2scKhONEUQrC6RfKE/sBW5TRBONnRTdfRIQ+jMXeAs7a2NA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hkgpXpLhYHIfNH4QwpI+cQTaCIn1Mka9tX46fATqBMs=; b=mD65JnU8g9Ns9FB9WVwgmT2ORWkPHxOjcdXDXr5qV5FjHjen7DPrZb2k31ImOEwidT8d/MuOfJIGviChYYvF6XMbPGj2p+hTlxXg6yaSTtaX7fIFAxc9UsWJIZ/exoRhIAOZjAKHUPtLe8SswaiUuERU2xCO4uzg/hcJX727YlQ=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.39.155) by MN2PR11MB3838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2387.24; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:35:06 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a5e4:8223:5e72:6181]) by MN2PR11MB4319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a5e4:8223:5e72:6181%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2387.027; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:35:06 +0000
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?
Thread-Index: AQHVjXSxmpGXsWk+qkKRidIrKoxyNqdwwdcAgACs44CAAAyTgIAAFXCAgABisYCAACDDAA==
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:35:06 +0000
Message-ID: <A4BAB441-D099-4BB0-BE62-F112641F6AB7@cisco.com>
References: <8DA54CF0-B7D7-4E4B-BA85-EA024401DEAC@fugue.com> <EA825926-BD88-4B10-84F8-91E25C1BBA6D@cisco.com> <dd6a2619-d8b0-0b9e-b3f9-77919b1ca9ba@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dd6a2619-d8b0-0b9e-b3f9-77919b1ca9ba@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rajiva@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1003::6c]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9a64c095-c7ff-4855-ee67-08d75cea2833
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3838:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3838EB62F3450446E5AF3BB2C7600@MN2PR11MB3838.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 02065A9E77
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(346002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(13464003)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(6246003)(6512007)(76116006)(71200400001)(53546011)(66556008)(66446008)(316002)(99286004)(6506007)(64756008)(2906002)(25786009)(66574012)(66946007)(66476007)(76176011)(6116002)(33656002)(46003)(7736002)(36756003)(446003)(486006)(6436002)(81156014)(4326008)(102836004)(8936002)(2616005)(186003)(5660300002)(110136005)(6306002)(476003)(6486002)(256004)(81166006)(229853002)(11346002)(8676002)(58126008)(14444005)(86362001)(966005)(14454004)(71190400001)(478600001)(305945005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3838; H:MN2PR11MB4319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: CYPPYKWa5dd5vOhvMocCluNz1K4Km8Wq94c4aQGUUxshpR7L2yH7Wf8gKbE5VEr1Qw1AVwYhCyB9z40CWqmHwxkQzKZsAc7pk40crh0CNFo+SpkpH2LpCu5STHI5JsyFumqCM8by81riRGrStPGlb2L6xjPkpftFnG5H+Yh0ruWop16MDRnQO0HxLJoJgJg5pHipZPWpXyg30NHGIn4V+QDMX3UDrg7xu+ECpFp3h8QAUETO+F/pfoTC1hY1CfhgzEqw4y3WrYBtljG/I6iHKGv8Z7Tl1ls34Fcfqz5Am62+TVDhwVeNjDBJ4aALXgt4T/nkjA4S2IdXd5rMH6hDVOMG5ik05NxWKNZ3xpNNcxjlBRQNpQDMCr3DdMO5evN5nfQ6AJjUlkzlYZFc6D6Wf+4bpSVHzhH7Ua9QPk6BHwMhBx7JuZVNpGMndri+UeJo9rhzldgSsNUYEZuClmWxi2N7ENEKInvkObw8jfsyepU=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4ED43D209E261A45AD823718F336551B@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9a64c095-c7ff-4855-ee67-08d75cea2833
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Oct 2019 03:35:06.1989 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: PjasdLw6bfWRoCuzm0PU6uJeTXyuQE9NiJy1hxBpoyyZazVwrwrVos8NsuXuCyvb1jKOYYcYXphHRwoRwg9JFA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3838
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.19, xch-rcd-009.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/64NswGPoT0Hhqq6Ffn776Ye2Yck>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:35:12 -0000

Yes, same prefix can be specified in DHCPv6 server and router RA PIO. If ever a conflict between the IPv6 addresses at a host, then the host could use DAD to resolve the conflict (and recycle the SLAAC derived address). Standard machinery. 

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv  

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>;
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 2:32 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>;, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>;
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org"; <v6ops@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?

    
    
    Le 29/10/2019 à 13:38, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit :
    > 
    > Indeed. CPE router should allow keeping both M and A flags, to allow 
    > simultaneous usage of DHCPv6 and SLAAC by the hosts.
    
    At high level, it makes sense to require to allow simultaneous DHCP and
    SLAAC usage on a same subnet; a private email suggests the same.
    With that, Android and Windows would live ok side-by-side on same subnet.
    
    Further, thinking about how to implement the req, one would wonder
    whether the prefix in PIO with A flag set in an RA with M set, would be
    the same as the prefix used by the DHCP Server to form and deliver
    addresses?
    
    (if yes, I think that is difficult to achieve: (1) difficult to put same
    prefix in the software implementing RA sending, and in the DHCP server
    connfig files and (2) difficult to make sure the Server does not form an
    address for a Client, address that a Host has already formed in the same
    prefix).
    
    (because of that reason, I think that trying to implement that
    requirement would lead to designating a prefix for SLAAC and another
    prefix for DHCP; that may sound a little bit as a waste).
    
    Alex
    
    > 
    > About time to update RFC7084 - 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7084#section-4.3
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Cheers, Rajiv
    > 
    > 
    >> On Oct 29, 2019, at 7:22 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
    >> 
    >>  On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:37 AM, Alexandre Petrescu 
    >> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com 
    >> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >>> Well no.  After  activating DHCPv6 on CPE the CPE sent three RAs
    >>>  changing the Lifetime and flipping the M(anaged) and
    >>> A(utonomous) flags.
    >>> 
    >>> Packet dumps available upon request.
    >> 
    >> That’s the problem.   It should turn on the managed bit but not 
    >> turn off the autonomous bit.  The two can validly be on at the
    >> same time.
    >> 
    >> Of course, since their meanings are deprecated, it’s not too 
    >> surprising that implementations get this wrong.
    >> 
    >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
    >>  v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops