IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Windows 10 doesn't honour 'M' flag in RA

Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@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 4FFFA1270FC; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 eGxiB_DDCBEd; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 541A612706D; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 74so3532109lfs.0; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bsinnr+IWesqa8ngIVnJrYgT8LAZcSNegS03WfHJYqM=; b=dnzuxVcywtXnuDF+e2iNV0CuMN7kC4k8UavOLs/HX3eK1TR4Jxahe15yYCb1wuAYFI pvZX3z8rM6RQ+qd+8P+VJBSi8BD17ZIfMZHke/apItIy/d5wgfM9lGPTAMoiLnQbEfAn rSdT1YvcUgdOz2SHJ/MHxD01rO0WT61lzLcrSneG+t0/oTOBHOeS3qyTVT2RyyqbDGyH fwf4sfe2tmN+RTe/O8nULjfJwjObZedWSh0b+rddZCNbwEO6sd3cQWTnIJjLkLnhweCh oiDt2dRLHc8fClmkJlrvXYPdbR6MQQGKuhg1NbCRFBCU0zU+gIIifI0BE789mlrElffH atJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bsinnr+IWesqa8ngIVnJrYgT8LAZcSNegS03WfHJYqM=; b=gfaWvoF0iSKKK5CZFgwzxjYchfnBkBF3+ZGSqW4ni1Xppvx8mwaDTgEh2XaRdmCXeU r3KV6Jht56CGhxzRV/JhQzdqwuhpa2+oLU8F0OGj8ovCeR/RQedyyCZ+v0M/JZqoTlLa LTduyzb9gRjXzO+d7vKDIbq0/48nFJosYKcS+qLiemn8RZymSB65l2NyRRTihmEL0WED zJwhRR6qBgLgO21caf2iHw8e+lpI2LfFdoum5d+NIdnHkRmgV3WZNlBRXPGwjPrBYUCC nj+VB3DaZkN/21O2upFlqwaiAZfnITAQS22UT91sitX/ZOsy0IVhlsZs623eRU1JC02M 4Htg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJzB1iabyi9Ys7rUysb0oY/TsMr5eCjGB+l/hLSGRhv0cTS2WsH zrck+K380jesF8T5b1Fuok5M+cyvhoZUvht9z0k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou7vNPeX1kutEa0lZPjhyKA0Mz1eL05EfMrx9Unl1/FgWJIxKr5x+mQ0bBZDya/4kYcuusyoiZ5TrPJBDYNpFM=
X-Received: by 10.25.163.17 with SMTP id m17mr2050738lfe.88.1513185372562; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.2.212 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:15:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0B00C5CB-9806-4215-B616-D9BE51196FAD@gmail.com>
References: <CANFmOtnJiKtBH9WuOjfAAaOxmrQ8SanU1ATiEY_zSA9DbAuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxptEK5nZTVHwuzG0aK119Ns61cdfNT3JWPafTGcAxMeeg@mail.gmail.com> <CANFmOtm2SU13o3Wey1XqhQf0WuuTzm80XXPp7Q9UGiV6Kvh5DA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712120844540.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <b90e4615-eee9-839a-c65b-805824122c29@gmail.com> <7c3d5bb6f4cf4df98ce53c705816242c@XCH15-06-02.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CANFmOtmdORBxjT4zHf65uKNR6-YrEYHoMCBrcCogHBWP7+ifcw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712131225280.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CANFmOtkKcq8fkms5op1WftLmGok003UcMt4Y+0+3BLcE_myO0Q@mail.gmail.com> <F2F31353-9641-4670-8152-0DF1B184451E@jisc.ac.uk> <21FDCF40-8598-4CEE-9778-0E648697A9E9@fugue.com> <0B00C5CB-9806-4215-B616-D9BE51196FAD@gmail.com>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:45:51 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtk4x86YDwuezZO_VzFn4RT41PZiZKL+mrFvRSPP4WkyFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114033609c6aeb05603bec9b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oiPN4LjIGtHeY0SJQPIGNOOpX_s>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Windows 10 doesn't honour 'M' flag in RA
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, 13 Dec 2017 17:16:16 -0000

Response inline.

Yours,
Naveen.

On 13 December 2017 at 22:15, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> The actual text from Section 4.2. "Router Advertisement Message Format” in
> RFC4861 is:
>
>       M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>                      set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>                      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
>
> Naveen] This statement isn't saying that 'M' bit SHOULD / SHALL be
referred to learn or get the addresses via DHCPv6.  This is where the point
is.

                     If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and
>                      can be ignored because DHCPv6 will return all
>                      available configuration information.
>
>       O              1-bit "Other configuration" flag.  When set, it
>                      indicates that other configuration information is
>                      available via DHCPv6.  Examples of such information
>                      are DNS-related information or information on other
>                      servers within the network.
>
>         Note: If neither M nor O flags are set, this indicates that no
>         information is available via DHCPv6.
>
> I think the protocol specification is clear.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> A ‘hint’ was the consensus.
> >
> > A 'hint' was the vote.   I don't believe that it was a consensus.   As
> Naveen points out, the current solution is technically invalid.   It would
> be better not to have the 'M' bit than to have it be a hint.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email