[195935] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Sat Sep 23 03:22:49 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:37:14 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Steve Teusch <steve.teusch@rtr.guru>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR10MB1647A9D9F8562FAA66666B22F6670@MWHPR10MB1647.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9/22/17, 3:12 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Steve Teusch"
<nanog-bounces+lee=3Dasgard.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=E2=80=99s weird for a DHCPv6 relay process to inspect relayed Reply
messages and use them to update the routing table. Weird, but I=E2=80=99ve done i=
t.
What origin type do you use for that route? Static, really?
This behavior was requested by operators who needed it; I don=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t do it is in the process of shutting down their ISP
access router business.
Lee
