Re: [v6ops] DHCP Option 108 Issue with Mac and iOS devices

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 24 November 2023 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 4D10CC14CE55 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JaFGMBlzqFtz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0C1C14CF0D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ScJRz5YCCz9wNgp for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:14:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3eyBp64-0o_1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:14:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f70.google.com (mail-ej1-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ScJRz1zFqz9wNhK for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:14:39 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4ScJRz1zFqz9wNhK
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4ScJRz1zFqz9wNhK
Received: by mail-ej1-f70.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a020d91dc93so141158966b.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1700838877; x=1701443677; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nrBfb1ymXfa5bQ6EKYUYipSx3Sg3JNUgcsoGJ0Copz4=; b=e/iOL7vo5Nb20rJaMU7lhqYpdde5uC24xlFgOVCAJdBt3vInyjRtPgvov0gvKiGZaE t+3p48xutjGGrAx/XcXgLmbjQEBOVDaUCeKh92LeAvxnT8Sa0PXmGi23//lCYz7a5jyq LQCciy3FiLs0VhDZ8QYvizz+3dEL4Tf8Q0uIDXvv90APzkD8O9tOYCWy7RbieL/Df4og Ig3OODGk/yypVgrx1K6/d4pIITaHJj6H37XpHOcaRFkplKgYWwJCZQn7RJmYGrO1EAQP URrp+GjOP4a63f79OQE+mBW1Rbqb3e5CgZMgBiS/IatrWuv56bZC0jQSa6rgYkRey9DC Mfug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700838877; x=1701443677; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=nrBfb1ymXfa5bQ6EKYUYipSx3Sg3JNUgcsoGJ0Copz4=; b=nCb35tA/mNsiiKu5h1h/nQfUQtQmP2GIoCKq5GKQA5b71lLtZ+KqkiK105rsJSLJ+Q zTK82gYvgjAI2W4CiGCoPbmBFb/LG7XxhJ0Mh7McARX5NwtPJMuwlj6JvOkF5pYulal/ GauuLXQA5b469sEA+kPBxFCY2VNVZpWalUQYFBRJvgHsF05UDQ2i0eLwmZEey84uqj5g I1/lZaZYEPr2uuQPBncTCSQFevo0w0RH2PtQ2cdSTLABi6PtZfXRAD4aGQA8Tfh6J+MQ R1Q/V9cmJNN1fe/drhQP1hbFePKVdFk8ab4tSOSL76FOPbFAUx4JapD2uwe+bPJ9+kVt cTcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyUSQ2a/yUMRJyZnL0LslKtwQajUF49bKFv5y8xhTdmmFv89BBv HZXXgBzUNzCJLvK16H2n+VABXy1ejduBsOhTqf60DZ2NuMpwbC0DSmt13SkeGD1gIK7gnLwCvPi 1PsmBaoarVcz8MqPmActotPXizHQOH8mY7w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7481:b0:a01:f0c7:907a with SMTP id e1-20020a170906748100b00a01f0c7907amr2225053ejl.51.1700838877650; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGgcjt50N3y6EjceDD6jjo/CvwDb041llvuuXG5Bv4JZTGX6LuoUIc1yNPsuuszoLDEhgHavC6m/X6dg7JOJPg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7481:b0:a01:f0c7:907a with SMTP id e1-20020a170906748100b00a01f0c7907amr2225030ejl.51.1700838877241; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:14:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BL1PR18MB427723EC69CD715FDA7E1CD9ACB0A@BL1PR18MB4277.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <a13d3deb-e285-4c0a-8fbf-44feab9edd4a@gmail.com> <BL1PR18MB4277BE878F335B8BEC218B21ACB0A@BL1PR18MB4277.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <e0470656-97d1-425d-a9b2-a5a39bf4fcc2@gmail.com> <BL1PR18MB42779B01A0EFE62142EE19AEACB0A@BL1PR18MB4277.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <666bdf4a-abdf-9c2c-d6f9-c67907778c3d@gmail.com> <BL1PR18MB4277F8FD1820B111FBA95477ACB0A@BL1PR18MB4277.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0P_QKGZO_wc4EcuFD=d4pw24se0w-+bfm8Wgns0Ah0Jg@mail.gmail.com> <187BF493-685B-4F8C-B7CF-642EA8166233@delong.com> <27b3ae83-e930-76a8-cdc4-f7098a07ddd7@gmail.com> <ZV2z9WwJKJTxQL0i@Space.Net> <m1r5j1R-0000KXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr1tsWbzniGQeu9y_bzoKhBFFg0T=yKfqaXZK05CWA5isw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0LB3ErWi-xo+uHKZ2nGo6aR50okPrHMWjOSAt3r74c1A@mail.gmail.com> <621FDAA3-E3F8-4A39-A6F2-A1B656FA2B3E@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <621FDAA3-E3F8-4A39-A6F2-A1B656FA2B3E@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:14:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1NPfUFgCUV7FFb+cM5TyKVmoYpsAGPyne9kwCqLm_FdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001932a8060ae7693e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nCftCslaBh66dUBXPGdVLkTM63E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCP Option 108 Issue with Mac and iOS devices
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 24 Nov 2023 15:14:44 -0000

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 08:42 Ole Troan <otroan=
40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> > A full blown health check, isn’t easy, and may or may not be advisable.
> Nevertheless, if I understand the reported issue correctly, the IPv6 stack
> wasn’t even getting as far as configuring a globally scoped address.
> Therefore, even without a full blown health check, it seems advisable that
> if after some timeout, the IPv6 stack hasn’t successfully configured a
> globally scoped address, then maybe it should reconsider it’s DHCP Option
> 108 status.
> >
> > If there is no globally scoped IPv6 address available, both NAT64 and
> Native IPv6 are NOT going to work. So, then retrying IPv4 seems like a
> reasonable next step, especially since it got a DHCP Option 108 response,
> that is a clue that there is at least some level of IPv4 functionality
> available.
> >
> > So rather than calling this a health check, I’d call it a sanity check.
>
> For a host implementation trying to optimise the user experience, why
> wouldn’t always grabbing an IPv4 address if one is available be the right
> thing to do(tm)?
> I.e. not use 108.


You are assuming that native IPv4 is somehow more optimal than NAT64.
However, in most cases, native IPv4 is being provided by NAT44, and in my
opinion NAT44 and NAT64 are mostly equivalent. There are slight
differences, that in certain circumstances could produce an advantage for
one over the other. But overall those differences and therefore any
advantages are mostly trivial.

The biggest difference I see, is full dual stack with NAT44 has a higher
overall operational cost at scale than NAT64. However, at small scale even
this difference is trivial.

The reason to provide DHCP Option 108 is backwards compatibility with IPv4
only devices.  If the hosts make that too expensive by always using an IPv4
address, that could prematurely drive large scale infrastructure providers
to stop providing that backwards compatibility.

There are always trade offs, and what you say could be true if you only
look at it from the host’s perspective. However, looking at the total
system, I think DHCP Option 108 provides a nice solution to support, IPv4
only, dual stack, and IPv6 only, all on the same network and therefore a
long term evolution for the Internet.

Thanks

>