IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 1792B1201A3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 N6G-S9aSwha6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 D94CB120025 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xAECQUSa016728; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:26:30 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AAC620643A; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:26:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C54B2039CB; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:26:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xAECQUm4024708; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:26:30 +0100
To: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <c4791cdd-6021-de83-6863-4d77ef1d1694@gmail.com> <CAOSSMjWu7C9jmG+8Yg7V++3GWzG+BSzFu0o0nHHYJY60P2T2oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0dafa657-880e-58eb-4c1c-5d301fa7b418@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:26:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjWu7C9jmG+8Yg7V++3GWzG+BSzFu0o0nHHYJY60P2T2oA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6GuL2lraFSceEAUrBW56uRnptqU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:26:35 -0000


Le 13/11/2019 à 15:16, Timothy Winters a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:54 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, v6opsers,
> 
>     While reading through RFC7084 I couldnt find a place where the CE
>     Router is mandated to put a prefix in the PIO, even though there is
>     a (strange?) requirement to use RIO.
> 
>     I would like to ask:
> 
>     - which existing particular requirement the author assumes to be
>     putting a derived /64 in the PIO in the RA?
> 
> The placing of the prefixes in the PIO from the IA_PD was originally 
> located in RFC 3633, so it's not covered in 7084.

Thanks for the clarification.

It is probably the example from DHCPv6 RFC 8415 "[typically] client 
subnets a single delegated /48 prefix into /64 prefixes and assigns one 
/64 prefix to each of the links in the subscriber network."

RFC7084 doesnt say it, but it refers to RFC8415 who indeed says 
something close to putting a prefix in a PIO. (it says 'assign to 
interface', which could be something else than putting a prefix in the PIO).

>     - what does it mean 'An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a
>     router for the delegated prefix(es) [...] using the "Route
>     Information Option" specified in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191].'?  (I am
>     asking because I suspect this requirement is wrong: the CE Router
>     must certainly not use RIO with these prefixes).
> 
> CE Routers should place the RIO in the RAs on the LAN interface to have 
> Host route traffic for those prefixes to that Router if they have 
> multi-homed.

I think I agree: if CE Router is multi-homed to two ISPs, each with its 
own ULA space for a content server then the CE Router might want to put 
these spaces in distinct RIO options in same RA sent by CE Router on LAN.

However, the draft does not read that way.  The RIO requirement is 
placed right after a requirement talking about deriving prefixes.  IT 
made me thing it wants the derived prefixes in the RIO (should be in the 
PIO).

I am not asking clarification, I am not asking for Errata.

But I do not agree to say that that RFC is clear.

Alex
> 
>     Alex
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email