IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 63F913A07D7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7u88PCk6tTph for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 C5FB93A07F9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id j8so3857039ilk.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=rmSAIrLe0UHo8ExZj0Sdkc2F9/JRanetF3UvLJn7aOH56FPzIeA/g1yn8+0FT295jT Ukc8h/vCgL0Mbe/4YW/hZhOTZVnI647rblHSa9/i1tCXFrmeIx7kdBfMfrm0z696jau0 2xVa1dYRhdQ/oinTnH+p1DufLBEjYkUl0qdtCI75bkMIDwr4ee5UzdcAZqiwZwyRuXhC PHJhcR6TqO/KpRB6ly8InqxgLi+WNW++rtf/l75SplCTJNXdb9M0hSjH6OIFEG7Iq4E/ p4OA3GIs7FyXfqOwxgt0tdfkM50reBUdb94k+zWBgHt9VaaboVK8gHbd6GTWcJe9otHl ANLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=rC3oiujt8SSMHrJPXdYJiO1QvdCMJjY66uFFqeMkKzQ0zmBicO0lv86r5171olR3QQ /wyaRLUPXKNTdSsRM70ltOqwH9llBYEHnRZYZJeu6+nIRqZmzNFt1mtnn0rlYMLFjxEk uyYVIkq1l4EbKlM7hP9cZihR7iXoDOJuERflsaJMD6LRNEIWyLD1O3Kx/kWkZMLv+6tF 28q0Y2dLMwKGv9kz9nzgvoMfY49AMslFaGhnYYb9UluB63s1PfjAjF9/+GTcV9GsI/eQ ndjXOvRtT/PsUMWDd72Gh3m1wjFnzUP2wYcERVulV4KFLfEWEPRh7KOItwAIMnnxY2tT LxGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NuZ8J/DlT2J8BmU7e7MqLPjSfHyx9lwEvKOQuom/CosoeyLmm ShtwbzQa+DW61U8SPTcYuw0zkg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8krYjOWK3aBEIRHhQ+kKeJoiztfFSFqHeb/yWtWFZFcOP+6NTchJ4ImV3l3gfeov+GmWW2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:e05:: with SMTP id a5mr3505625ilk.96.1602874277939; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q83sm3497868ili.16.2020.10.16.11.51.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <EE880685-1C83-4E60-BE50-24172B0690D1@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45729ABD-7594-4187-80B9-05941E489AED"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.82\))
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:51:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com> <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QLVsoBAgaPE37ADHcIMfP12HJkE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:51:21 -0000

On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:30 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it should never forward a packet received on the WAN interface back out the WAN interface.

It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t have a rule that it should never forward a packet received on the LAN interface back to the LAN interface.

I wonder what’s happening in practice. We have quite a lot of devices in the world doing DHCPv6 PD. How is it that we aren’t seeing reports of routing loops? Are they just humming away silently, consuming LAN bandwidth, or are routers already doing the right thing?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email