IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 13 December 2017 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4B7C61275F4; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4ENh10C-2KUU; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA07124F57; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5434820090; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:35:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164DE814AD; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:32:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <aa71c96d-0829-5b6b-19e7-27834dce565e@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> <CANFmOtk4x86YDwuezZO_VzFn4RT41PZiZKL+mrFvRSPP4WkyFw@mail.gmail.com> <aa71c96d-0829-5b6b-19e7-27834dce565e@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:32:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3166.1513193550@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vIgVwIdIZ9nkFihy-YWNWciDgmo>
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 19:32:33 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> 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.

    > Well, the "Note:" does leave an open question. How does the person (or
    > automaton) configuring the router that sends the RA know that no
    > information is available via DHCPv6? It is entirely possible that
    > DHCPv6 is available on another box, and the person configuring the
    > the router doesn't know it. So these flags are intrinsically unreliable
    > and can only be hints; it's *necessary* that hosts are allowed to
    > ignore them and look for DHCPv6 anyway.

So, maybe what we should be writing is:

O              1-bit "Other configuration" flag.  When clear it
               indicates that this router believes that it has all
               available/valid configuration information.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email