IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Thu, 14 December 2017 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@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 9BC43126BF0; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:07:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 PJ013V38jhJK; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02771200C5; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id u127so2309712lff.5; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:07:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xfIgRAsDB2hEeZlEVRV6MXABz5tgZ7tXU4OZEUc+2SU=; b=HZPdbYSVnW/QSqHIugMQkWVM1ipcn8n4O1m+sHzN++kQNtkKko+orwQAZQ+nv+SwYx IM1NSD3LiLsZfYYNQN7V2OFXNqcL4y3Lmw1j10HSEG+rdcE7+9bZ8Km71ELIaVMukans aw+Y3MnhXAPy0y6WVIH0YNjSaQJYcMJD2DhWcXaz8sDx8xuSR5zRV8HbDYvqGdFyOpGX SJD9EmnpsbVoTBHydU53AokO8Zw2AG22BL5+juItTOX4M8QIArTtMbgPP4o2ZjoWfkii 6O+OC0tuCEzScZng6cYT2iknsqDI4ta3uFHAX+WKc9kSp/FNs24XsatLflcRZfSMkdUm J+uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xfIgRAsDB2hEeZlEVRV6MXABz5tgZ7tXU4OZEUc+2SU=; b=Hm3M6rjml59ADsNXsB2TDvE7ut4L2Qs6+7i8J26hZc+gAdjjq7rg62LqajqNt9pefq D7EPmw3gmrtXUe9+OlUoA4Liskxgo/UbVg98vR84KTgAHewdwi/kQkYHMdUWkmCmQEM/ jXpYV3DlSaHKr1B/TrWvzEwFT0Be3cgukg0Yx4WReniVJYkUWrZ+h6C0qJoO0qKTthjJ kSqwdwdPrh/mU7TPEKM8LfNlOXQRvnwPUZjS+lidcZydg3/RgRJj2qOS0jewksInh2fQ y0GWiWwUiDaCcJ2COGwG4SEJzTrxURe3tY69WNTyVIo2Hm6XARWSijUalZrpnj4VPucD GDPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mICrQ39LOEXZ/y3CtaMl8KUenG/2MnQnL3v3MNXWzwFl1Mo15Vq AUCVZv/w9hcsInLyD0RCVg8Vz5nv8SQu4yqiWS4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoub9Jtzjeng3HtcHYheFKU1+OoTKxZdpWPdI0cKsEwFlTRGMdCmdcTrKSddwqIDeQ4sgL+VdrTAEV/XRatMHPg=
X-Received: by 10.46.89.69 with SMTP id n66mr3992804ljb.26.1513253235854; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:07:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.2.212 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:06:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCD4719@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CANFmOtnJiKtBH9WuOjfAAaOxmrQ8SanU1ATiEY_zSA9DbAuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxptEK5nZTVHwuzG0aK119Ns61cdfNT3JWPafTGcAxMeeg@mail.gmail.com> <CANFmOtm2SU13o3Wey1XqhQf0WuuTzm80XXPp7Q9UGiV6Kvh5DA@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCD4719@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:36:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtn=wunNP=HPY-tzPhAP5zftYce7aK_xVOHkkZi2rG2Sog@mail.gmail.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c073aec94136605604bb93b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DARF6XPP8ELTBZGjOmtyIMS3-Ek>
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:07:20 -0000

No harm is seen with this behaviour.  Just curious on know why the
protocols are designed this way where devices doesn't honour the flags sent.

Yours,
Naveen.

On 14 December 2017 at 03:37, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:

> Hi Naveen (or anyone else who cares to answer),
>
> > In our recent testing, we observed that Windows 10 doesn't honour 'M'
> flag
> > in RA.  It's not just Windows 10, same behaviour is observed with latest
> Mac
> > OS as well.
>
> I'm curious: What is being harmed by this behavior? I can definitely see
> advantages in Windows and Mac OS doing it this way; I'm just struggling to
> understand the disadvantages. Years ago, there was a problem in some ISP
> networks prior to full launch of IPv6 and prior to support for SOL_MAX_RT
> (RFC 7083) of DHCPv6 servers being overwhelmed by Solicit messages they
> were configured not to respond to (because IPv6 wasn't formally supported).
> But with SOL_MAX_RT, that really shouldn't be an issue. So what is being
> broken by this behavior now?
>
> Barbara
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email