IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 05A18126DC2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 AUjba78VmyuO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F7B127601 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13684; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491402344; x=1492611944; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kkKL4f54S0wa6L9PWj9eJVxbSrTxH36S1MLVFgOrY/g=; b=UZ8FuBfiTmH+pUZEWDtH88VK1f6oId5ETP37V6lIvQx6rWC5nsZ1m1AI jIgSipxQiWgjGEhg2nJbJSSHQWhLXQOpXfynzvpYO5L9tsJkEc6n6wag5 MITZRSnGqz8CYNddn+lZH8QaAowHrksFhs0woWLWzKAjTUT6zw4oGPfob 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BvAgAN/eRY/5hdJa1cDgsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJuZmGBCweDXIoSkR0fkCGFNIIOKoV4AhqDMz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQECASMKTAULAgEIDgMDAQIBJwMCAgIwFAkIAgQBDQWKBggOq0iCJiuKQAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFiFMJgmKEQCQSFgKCTi6CMQWccAGGfYtUkTyTdQEfOEs6WxVBEQGGCj11iDyBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,278,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="229171975"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Apr 2017 14:25:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v35EPhu5020507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:25:43 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:25:42 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:25:42 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?
Thread-Index: AQHSqOFtcCIh4JqwF0K0H7rCJjQ0haGunLAAgABDSACAA/sWgIAAKaaAgAANfQCAAAjfgIAABE8AgAA2LICAAHAg2YAADplOgABgLwCAAAlBgIACS1yrgAA4z+WAAFVpgIAAA6mAgAAD5ICAAARJgIAACqIAgAACbAD//7/WgA==
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:25:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4E12D1F6-8272-4BAD-846D-A4E0FEE70E8B@cisco.com>
References: <914B3454-58A4-4130-8B90-6371100D619D@fugue.com> <m1cvkEL-0000GUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E4CEB76E-9867-4D6C-BD91-6B06E0E9BF8C@fugue.com> <20170405.145921.74683020.sthaug@nethelp.no> <22348F51-ECB4-44F4-8D99-265FAEFB3830@jisc.ac.uk> <CAOSSMjWvSg-93Ehw+Qv7o=uvhxXKDS6MdkrgeFRpeEn2+eyOtA@mail.gmail.com> <CBA7BD40-0DE1-46C9-982F-03DF59995623@jisc.ac.uk> <CAAedzxrO8i=xKm6QNURAK8swwqqFZ+rPHhsMa9VyP_PScheRdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxrO8i=xKm6QNURAK8swwqqFZ+rPHhsMa9VyP_PScheRdw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.32.107]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E12D1F682724BAD846DA4E0FEE70E8Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/X_HgbYn7RYFIvkPVCikkNoN2WQs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:25:47 -0000

That is correct as DHCP assumes a single provisioning domain and if the two RAs are from different ones, there’s no way to indicate that. DHCP could send a combined list, but not ones specific to an internet.

There was MIF work on PVD option for DHCPv6, but a patent issue pretty much killed that. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support/.


-          Bernie

From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?


On 5 April 2017 at 23:06, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk<mailto:Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2017, at 14:28, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu<mailto:twinters@iol.unh.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I would add that supporting 3736 as Relay Agent.   I'm guessing that many routers will just use the relay function to send the DHCP messages to a central server.

Yes, indeed.

It’s basically what Owen was proposing what feels like a few hundred emails ago; a clear model for hosts and routers, but adding qualifications for the SHOULD. I think my MUSTs and SHOULDs are the same as he proposed.

Tim

We shouldn't pretend, though, that DHCPv6 DNS and RA DNS are the same and the choice is between two equal things.

From my point of view, RA DNS is way more expressive and useful than DHCPv6 DNS.

Specifically, consider the case where 2 RAs are sent on the network each with different PIOs, RIOs, and RDNSS sets.  End nodes can associate all this information with each next hop, and make better, logically consistent use of essentially two different networks a la RFCs 7556 and 8028.

I don't think DHCPv6 DNS can do that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email