Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.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 BED8B12007A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lCRPvjWEsPvq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (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 18BEF120129 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id y39so1285246qty.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pBwKQriN5PILVx4EsPzAvhNO0iXXEkDdrLU046AVfb0=; b=l5jCPVs/vwQc3jjy+3B+1S2ZED8woUF36oWb3JXNP4mzEqqWz/puaBw+540UWCArlg upx3FX8kWJUpYd+HfquClBc4l5ipOBJlIEQMSeqdEjUMwKvYnPBwxf8tOQMZRttb93hO 4F/2cpzvt1Ocp8M38fdtFKC1pKbEuXnYpKCEL5JJkv72V7sN/l5Tvw1skohoxfBIUH3e Fx8IP/yp6Lv2ouUtwBOKaZQ48hN4niPk0cjQvBaO5iH0PFxKQFrfvluIwQT96BDEEHzO ScNCHIK8rSLhh8ZkO05FhKUin+/PzKP2iqVXKrvO4LhvsaFgewKZynMEu3KKioupVCOm oYiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pBwKQriN5PILVx4EsPzAvhNO0iXXEkDdrLU046AVfb0=; b=G/ifaWsRPjterhnDnFrYRbBeiUXPzwAm1LKH7kcSWzKHgivKEiRW4lwaperc8dLRGv dknj4FjeRVH0pvD2htHa6fvzbFydZfYWCvM9ENvxYtVZxoJSWlu8DQ9A/HKO1uUVYv0/ lS2qXUraj29mxKvSR9qGxzBVf5H9IxVs3u1KShq4rCTaou5wdowzSmhO6Uu28N3i1OZk vGMNLF2C3/jNpQ3YofK5VzpM0MhMC42TgAO3lrWK8EjLa6+TU3aF4wegdZ7c0PG2pq2t lYCipxdQ2cIrBAcBGfwEWTgFOoo8Yslq716wnLf+I73YMxPycFbUiNgVmAgDLI6vxw0K cJpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwYVf1H9N0t4WJNs3K/KQ7/RJwy3zSC9NgcZ5Z1NOs2/s2OTQo WJMvxF6Aq1W7vTl1wxrbSfPFS9eW3dlAOaFk2jg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybenAMxY327qVGcf2UCSJ17Y49S8sLgbrtqTWOEQlP3dIKTAxeHZPF6szcYiVH0MCZBFE0vTLNkCzc6+QVmaA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:385d:: with SMTP id r29mr2947323qtb.52.1572404228803; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8DA54CF0-B7D7-4E4B-BA85-EA024401DEAC@fugue.com> <EA825926-BD88-4B10-84F8-91E25C1BBA6D@cisco.com> <dd6a2619-d8b0-0b9e-b3f9-77919b1ca9ba@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dd6a2619-d8b0-0b9e-b3f9-77919b1ca9ba@gmail.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:56:57 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAS5r1XXADCmsuUicy16R7tL_B1AUDuqQfgv0uoVNOwveg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nxUryybCKHNHM8NesojYGjG-PcQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] out-of-focus: why DHCPv6 breaks Android computers?
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, 30 Oct 2019 02:57:13 -0000

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:32 AM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:
> At high level, it makes sense to require to allow simultaneous DHCP and
> SLAAC usage on a same subnet; a private email suggests the same.
> With that, Android and Windows would live ok side-by-side on same subnet.

I'm still not sure I understand why you need DHCP for Windows...Unless
you got that Windows in an antique shop...;)
I have plenty of Windows machines in the network (in an IPv6-only one as well).

> Further, thinking about how to implement the req, one would wonder
> whether the prefix in PIO with A flag set in an RA with M set, would be
> the same as the prefix used by the DHCP Server to form and deliver
> addresses?

> (if yes, I think that is difficult to achieve: (1) difficult to put same
> prefix in the software implementing RA sending, and in the DHCP server
> connfig files

Could you elaborate on this one? How is "putting the prefix in the
software implementing RA sending" different from "configuring a prefix
on a router interface"?
It's like saying 'difficult to configure the same IPv4 or IPv6 prefix
on the router interface and on DHCP server'

>and (2) difficult to make sure the Server does not form an
> address for a Client, address that a Host has already formed in the same
> prefix).

That's could be done to the some degree of confidence - if the pool is
using the first addresses in the prefix (let's say, the highest 50
bits if the interface ID set to 0) then
it's rather unlikely that such interface ID would be generated by SLAAC.
However that's a good point, thanks for another item in my collection
of 'why I don't need DHCPv6' reasons ;))

> (because of that reason, I think that trying to implement that
> requirement would lead to designating a prefix for SLAAC and another
> prefix for DHCP; that may sound a little bit as a waste).

I'm sure operating such a network will be...eh...entertaining...

> >> On Oct 29, 2019, at 7:22 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
> >>
> >>  On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:37 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> >> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> Well no.  After  activating DHCPv6 on CPE the CPE sent three RAs
> >>>  changing the Lifetime and flipping the M(anaged) and
> >>> A(utonomous) flags.
> >>>
> >>> Packet dumps available upon request.
> >>
> >> That’s the problem.   It should turn on the managed bit but not
> >> turn off the autonomous bit.  The two can validly be on at the
> >> same time.
> >>
> >> Of course, since their meanings are deprecated, it’s not too
> >> surprising that implementations get this wrong.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> >>  v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry