IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 15 December 2017 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 CA9F51241FC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:38:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 jdPtiUxl4lI2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37F9812009C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:38:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBFMc6ai035879 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:38:07 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <5A344ECD.7070002@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:38:05 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.22 (Macintosh/20171208)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org list" <v6ops@ietf.org>
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> <D1717655-A8E7-4595-A35E-142F4A8AADD7@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <D1717655-A8E7-4595-A35E-142F4A8AADD7@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7r8x29NcNoVIqjoZIQ3CphEihXI>
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:38:13 -0000

Simon Hobson wrote:
> 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) ?

by definition, no, a properly managed network will work most of the
time.  No doubt a small number of networks exist which are affected by
this particular misconfig to the extent that ipv6 doesn't work properly,
at which point it's ok to say that it's operator error and calmly
declare that is isn't a protocol level issue or something that the ietf
needs to get excited about.

The amount of time and effort spent debating this particular
misconfiguration in v6ops is rather odd, given that it isn't really an
issue in the real world.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email