Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
Hi Ted, For the testing that we have conducted at the lab, must typical CE Router don't support DHCPv6 PD on the LAN as Ole pointed out. There are a couple that have this as an additional feature. I'm not aware of RA-Guard or Layer-2 filtering being placed on Ethernet networks and haven't seen it but I must admit it's not something that I have paid attention super close attention too. Wireless has a different set of rules, which is a longer conversation. Regards, Tim On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:18 AM Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ted Lemon wrote: > > I’ve been involved in some discussions recently where the question > has > > come up: how good is support for RFC7084 in shipping routers? And > > what gaps exist in RFC7084 that could cause problems? And in cases > > where RFC7084 support either isn’t present, or isn’t useful because > no > > IPv6 or because ISP is delegating a /64, what things might work and > > what things might not, if we want bidirectional reachability between > > two separate network links in the home. > > I see it (7084) in most every router at pubs in Ottawa. > They are connected by one of the incumbents that also does TV (think sports > channels in bars). There isn't always an IPv6 uplink (30% of them have > IPv6), > but there is consistently an IPv6 ULA visible. > Less often in coffee shops (WPA is on chalkboard), where it seems that they > tend to either buy from smaller ISPs (and provide their own crappy router), > or they are a multinational with hostile portals. > > > So for example, suppose we have "CE Router," which supports RFC7084, > > including prefix delegation. And we have "Internal Router" on that > > network requests a delegation, and gets a prefix from the CE router.. > > Presumably that prefix is out of a larger prefix that CE Router got > > from the ISP. Great so far. Let’s call the network on the > southbound > > interface of Internal Router “South Network”. Let’s call the network > on > > its northbound interface, which is also the network on CE router’s > > southbound interface, “North Network.” > > But 7084 has no requirements for DHCPv6-PD server. > > > Similarly, suppose we have a network where unfortunately PD Isn’t > > available internally, but IPv6 is present on the northbound interface > > of the internal node and southbound interface of the CE router. > > Suppose further that Internal Router allocates itself a ULA prefix > and > > advertises that as reachable and on-link on its southbound interface, > > and as reachable but not on-link on its northbound interface. Will > > that be blocked at layer 2 by CE Router? I’m sort of assuming here > > that the CE router is managing the North Network link, which is > > probably WiFi. > > That would probably work. > > > The goal here is to have bidirectional reachability between the two > > nodes on IPv6 using either a global prefix or a ULA. The concern is > > that something could prevent each of these cases from working. What > > I’m really curious about is whether people have experience with doing > > communications of this type using actual routers that ISPs are > > shipping. Is this “internal network” scenario part of acceptance > > testing for these routers? Is this all a big question mark? In > > principle this should all work, unless RA guard is hyperactive in CE > > Router. But what about in practice? > > I have never tried it, but I'm keen to. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network > architect [ > ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on > rails[ > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:12 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < > jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > > Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, > however I still mention it as: > > The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not > providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP > ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream > routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user > network. > > Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > > 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? > 2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > > I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above > is needed. Anyone else interested? > > > I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET > protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for > first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say > about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the > edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET > optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended > for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing > with first-mile internet service provider stuff. > It would also be my preference to have this separate from 7084. > > > --james woodyatt > > > > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > -- Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Orchestration of renumbering
Hello, > On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:37 PM, JF Tremblay > wrote: > > >> On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Timothy Winters wrote: >> >> Hi, >> For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an >> Interoperability and Conformance, there is a test makes sure a Router >> supports getting multiple IA_PDs for Prefix Change. > > Thanks Tim. > > Two questions: > 1. Can you share any data on how often this requirement was met or not? (like > a % of tested routers) > 2. Do you also test for L-13? And is that one usually met? Currently we have about 15 to 20 implementations at the IOL that are trying to meet the 7084 Requirements, including L-13. Most routers address issues when they are made aware of the problem. > > JF > > > > > ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Orchestration of renumbering
Hi, For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an Interoperability and Conformance, there is a test makes sure a Router supports getting multiple IA_PDs for Prefix Change. ~Tim > On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Steven Barth wrote: > > > > > >How does it "get" PD2? This is what I don't understand. You just all of > >a > >sudden next time the DHCPv6-PD communication happens, send two prefixes > > > >and then the client will accept these and start using them? The home > >gateway doesn't actually have to ask for it, you can just send it a > >bunch > > In general the cpe asks for an "identity association for prefix delegation" > (ia_pd). The server can include as many prefixes with individual lifetimes > into that ia_pd as it likes. > > Taking 6204 / 7084 into account the cpe even must support dynamic > reconfiguration meaning the server can at any point in time tell the client > to renew and doesn't need to wait for a renew. > > That all of course is given compliant cpes... > > > Cheers, > > Steven > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version
On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 04/06/2014 01:34, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Steven Barth wrote: >>> Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this was >>> that an HNCP router should provide "basic connectivity" in the form of >>> DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084 routers should not do >>> anything fancy >>> and just work as legacy devices believing the homenet is their ISP. >> >> If the person connects things in the wrong order, should we be documenting >> the heuristics that would permit the HNCP router to detect this situation? > > Let's get real. Users *will* mix and match RFC7084, RFC6204 and neither-of- > the-above IPv6 routers with HNCP-capable routers. If we can't deal with > routers that are blind to HNCP in a reasonable way, those users will > be unhappy. Indeed, the first stage is for HNCP routers to discover > the existence of HNCP-blind routers. > >Brian The following draft can from the homenet design team (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winters-homenet-sper-interaction-01) tries to cover the border scenarios for 6204, 7084 and other routers (SPERs) when interacting with the Homenet. It doesn't cover the case for routers inside a homenet but as Steven pointed out that can be two separate border router. ~Tim > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
