DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC
I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very important or return packets won't go to the client unless the route is manually added as a routing protocol is not an option. There should be a MUST activity for this somewhere. Anyone know what gives?
Steve Teusch wrote:
I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very important or return packets won't go to the client unless the route is manually added as a routing protocol is not an option. There should be a MUST activity for this somewhere.
Anyone know what gives?
This is being blocked by a number of parties at the IETF because of religious systemic antipathy towards DHCPv6. Nick
On 9/22/17, 3:12 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Steve Teusch" <nanog-bounces+lee=asgard.org@nanog.org on behalf of steve.teusch@rtr.guru> wrote:
I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very important or return packets won't go to the client unless the route is manually added as a routing protocol is not an option. There should be a MUST activity for this somewhere.
Anyone know what gives?
Well, it’s weird for a DHCPv6 relay process to inspect relayed Reply messages and use them to update the routing table. Weird, but I’ve done it. What origin type do you use for that route? Static, really? This behavior was requested by operators who needed it; I don’t remember whether we even went to the IETF with it. I think descriptions exist in CableLabs IPv6 docs; maybe in BBF docs, too. Any vendor who doesn’t do it is in the process of shutting down their ISP access router business. Lee
I don't know about brocade, but here's what I see in Junos and IOS... ....dhcpv6 relay binding seen... {master:0} agould@eng-lab-5048-2> show dhcpv6 relay binding routing-instance three Prefix Session Id Expires State Interface Client DUID 2699:2699:0:7::100/128 199 2591002 BOUND irb.26 LL_TIME0x1-0x1861ed8c-e8:03:9a:eb:0d:21 ....that same binding above is seen as a /128 route of type access-internal... {master:0} agould@eng-lab-5048-2> show route table three.inet6.0 2699:2699:0:7::100/128 three.inet6.0: 16 destinations, 38 routes (16 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 2699:2699:0:7::100/128 *[Access-internal/12] 1w5d 03:19:06 > to fe80::fd61:6bfe:da75:4801 via irb.26 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....dhcpv6 relay binding seen... eng-lab-3600-1#sh ipv6 dhcp relay binding vrf three Prefix: 2699:2699:FE00:30::/64 (Vlan26) DUID: 00030001B0B2DCCB1D1E IAID: Unknown lifetime: 2592000 expiration: 06:21:48 CDT Oct 25 2017 ....that same binding above is seen as a /64 route of type static... eng-lab-3600-1#sh ipv6 route vrf three 2699:2699:FE00:30::/64 Routing entry for 2699:2699:FE00:30::/64 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 Route count is 1/1, share count 0 Routing paths: FE80::B2B2:DCFF:FECB:1D1E, Vlan26 Last updated 3w4d ago eng-lab-3600-1#sh ipv6 route vrf three static IPv6 Routing Table - three - 18 entries Codes: C - Connected, L - Local, S - Static, U - Per-user Static route B - BGP, R - RIP, I1 - ISIS L1, I2 - ISIS L2 IA - ISIS interarea, IS - ISIS summary, ND - ND Default, NDp - ND Prefix DCE - Destination, NDr - Redirect, O - OSPF Intra, OI - OSPF Inter OE1 - OSPF ext 1, OE2 - OSPF ext 2, ON1 - OSPF NSSA ext 1 ON2 - OSPF NSSA ext 2 .... S 2699:2699:FE00:30::/64 [1/0] via FE80::B2B2:DCFF:FECB:1D1E, Vlan26 ...and as you can see, I have no static routes configured ... so it's interesting that these routes are seen as static.... eng-lab-3600-1#sh run | in ip route eng-lab-3600-1# -Aaron Gould
Dear Steve, We used to have this in the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-03 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00. We abandoned that effort because there wasn't sufficient support for it at that time. Cheers, Med
-----Message d'origine----- De : NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+mohamed.boucadair=orange.com@nanog.org] De la part de Steve Teusch Envoyé : vendredi 22 septembre 2017 09:12 Cc : nanog@nanog.org Objet : DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC
I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). Brocade supports this, but I am not finding this as part of any of the RFC's. This is to deliver home ISP service, so it is very important or return packets won't go to the client unless the route is manually added as a routing protocol is not an option. There should be a MUST activity for this somewhere.
Anyone know what gives?
participants (5)
-
Aaron Gould
-
Lee Howard
-
mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
-
Nick Hilliard
-
Steve Teusch