IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 13 November 2019 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 74FAF12003E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 xXR9vwe_tnMz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 D84B412004A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xADJw147009676; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:06:24 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2w8qyq96ab-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:06:23 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xADK6MPL007458; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:06:23 -0500
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xADK6FIJ007224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:06:15 -0500
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id B44FD4009E93; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:06:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 9FAF94009E83; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:06:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.98]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:06:15 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'Timothy Winters' <twinters@iol.unh.edu>, 'Alexandre Petrescu' <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
CC: "'v6ops@ietf.org'" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?
Thread-Index: AQHVmfepFgFbIMAaoE+bicSKfOr07aeJeeiAgABZ/wD//66noA==
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:06:14 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611536D06CA@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <c4791cdd-6021-de83-6863-4d77ef1d1694@gmail.com> <CAOSSMjWu7C9jmG+8Yg7V++3GWzG+BSzFu0o0nHHYJY60P2T2oA@mail.gmail.com> <835b8b49-b00a-6fe3-1f47-7db7d5a76b92@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <835b8b49-b00a-6fe3-1f47-7db7d5a76b92@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.216.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-13_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=684 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911130162
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ONHirylSLBgIv5M-_0JZ41JwLdI>
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:06:30 -0000

> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> On 14-Nov-19 03:16, Timothy Winters wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> More to the point of Alex's question, 7084 says:
> 
> >>> The IPv6 CE router MUST support router behavior according to
> >>> Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC4861].
> 
> which therefore requires properly formed PIOs.

Yes. RFC 4861 Section 6.2.3 requires the PIO option be included in a Router Advertisement. RFC 7084 L-1 requires RFC 4861 router behavior and L-5 specifically requires RAs to be sent. In addition, L-6 requires the A and L flags in these RA PIOs be set to 1 by default.
 
> >>     - 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).
> 
> Why is that wrong? It is under "LAN requirements:" and seems to mean
> exactly what Alex says next:
> 
> >> 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
> 
> (Although, not surprisingly, I would like to see RFC8028 mandated too.)
>
> Regards
>     Brian
> >>
> >>     Alex
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=nK6mGiWYHPKSrXTEo8C1LSdQ0QFjNY7DhOlMuyFBoBk
> &s=IO1gPn4j4zzbr1QsJovJtOA_ZRjrBTmpMxWG0aS2Bag&e=

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email