IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Windows 10 doesn't honour 'M' flag in RA

Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Wed, 13 December 2017 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
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 6C3651275F4; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:35:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ijbxMTFQ-0jX; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:35:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (ruthandcrusoe.plus.com [81.174.150.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CFE127058; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:35:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from simons-macbookpro.lan (unknown [80.229.10.150]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 063021BC37; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:35:04 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <aa71c96d-0829-5b6b-19e7-27834dce565e@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:34:48 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D1717655-A8E7-4595-A35E-142F4A8AADD7@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <CANFmOtnJiKtBH9WuOjfAAaOxmrQ8SanU1ATiEY_zSA9DbAuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxptEK5nZTVHwuzG0aK119Ns61cdfNT3JWPafTGcAxMeeg@mail.gmail.com> <CANFmOtm2SU13o3Wey1XqhQf0WuuTzm80XXPp7Q9UGiV6Kvh5DA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712120844540.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <b90e4615-eee9-839a-c65b-805824122c29@gmail.com> <7c3d5bb6f4cf4df98ce53c705816242c@XCH15-06-02.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CANFmOtmdORBxjT4zHf65uKNR6-YrEYHoMCBrcCogHBWP7+ifcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712131225280.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CANFmOtkKcq8fkms5op1WftLmGok003UcMt4Y+0+3BLcE_myO0Q@mail.gmail.com> <F2F31353-9641-4670-8152-0DF1B184451E@jisc.ac.uk> <21FDCF40-8598-4CEE-9778-0E648697A9E9@fugue.com> <0B00C5CB-9806-4215-B616-D9BE51196FAD@gmail.com> <CANFmOtk4x86YDwuezZO_VzFn4RT41PZiZKL+mrFvRSPP4WkyFw@mail.gmail.com> <aa71c96d-0829-5b6b-19e7-27834dce565e@gmail.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org list" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/76Q3FdVJwRzhy4Cjtu2O00YB3FI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Windows 10 doesn't honour 'M' flag in RA
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 13 Dec 2017 19:35:46 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the "Note:" does leave an open question. How does the person (or
> automaton) configuring the router that sends the RA know that no
> information is available via DHCPv6? It is entirely possible that
> DHCPv6 is available on another box, and the person configuring the
> the router doesn't know it. So these flags are intrinsically unreliable
> and can only be hints; it's *necessary* that hosts are allowed to
> ignore them and look for DHCPv6 anyway.

I keep hearing this argument time and time again, but cannot reconcile it with any professionally managed network. Are there really professionally managed networks where the guys responsible for the routers (intrinsically tied in with the network config) don't talk to the guys running DHCP servers (intrinsically tied in with the network config) ?
Put another way, are there really networks where two different groups "do their own thing" without agreeing between themselves how the network is supposed to work ?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email