Re: [v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 November 2015 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB49A1AD05B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 EFC6I2orGJJ0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4A351ACF60 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id tAHBBYK3010065 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:11:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 56A8620A32A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:17:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E58620A2EB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:17:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id tAHBBXeo003102 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:11:33 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <m1ZyNBq-0000HnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4CF07@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1ZyNyc-0000EoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <564B0B65.6080305@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:11:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m1ZyNyc-0000EoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UfGMDJzqXjx3MxyyW3Qkl-QizVQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:11:38 -0000


Le 16/11/2015 18:53, Philip Homburg a écrit :
>>> 1) How do packets reach the host. Is that documented somewhere?
>>
>> RFC3633 is largely silent on this, but when P is delegated to N, it
>> is implied that the delegating router must somehow inject
>> information into the routing system that will guide packets with
>> destination address A to N.
>
> I wonder where this should be documented.

I agree it shoul dbe documented.

> There seem to be some other interesting interactions: a DHCPv6 server
> running on a host should not hand out a PD to a host (because it
> doesn't work), but can hand it out to a router. And can hand it out
> when there request comes through a relay agent.
>
> A relay agent running on a router should install a routing table
> entry if the PD request comes from a host.

Certainly yes.

In the past we tried a problem statement draft about how PD impacts 
routing at Relay.

> There might be more interesting details.

Which ones?

Alex

>
>>> 2) If a node M on the same ethernet link wants to communicate
>>> with addres=
>> s
>>> A, it creates a destination cache entry for A picking a default
>>> router as next hop (because P is not onlink). Later, A can send
>>> the reply directly to M if M's address is onlink. That is likely
>>> to cause a neighbor cache entry for A at M, which will not be
>>> used because the destination cache entry is still in place.
>>
>> In this instance, the default router would return a Redirect to M
>> to inform it that N is a better first hop for reaching address A.
>> The Redirect would cause M to update its destination cache
>> accordingly.
>
> I wondered about redirect just after I hit sent. The neighbor
> discovery RFC is very explict about the IsRouter flag in the neighbor
> cache. In this case M has to set the IsRouter flag for A.
>
> I wonder if A should then always set the Router flag in neighbor
> advertisements as well. It looks like it has to, otherwise the
> neighbor cache will be flushed.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>