From teemu.savolainen@nokia.com Tue Feb 1 07:00:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167133A6D70 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:00:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.895, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7P+angW70r3 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:00:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A0D3A6D62 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p11F0FA7022547; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:03:52 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:03:32 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.60) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:03:26 +0100 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-016.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.6.185]) by 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:03:26 +0100 From: To: , , Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 ready for WGLC? Thread-Index: AQHLwiEsvoD0CCC15060WE4hfJcQ2Q== Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:03:23 +0000 Message-ID: <056B511A55F8AA42A3E492B7DD19A319394621@008-AM1MPN1-016.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2011 15:03:32.0219 (UTC) FILETIME=[310324B0:01CBC221] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: ot@cisco.com Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 ready for WGLC? X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:00:46 -0000 Dear DHC WG & chairs, We think the I-D "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation" (draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01) is ready and in a good enough shape for a WGLC. The I-D got also recently referenced from 3GPP Rel-10 specs side (3GPP TS23.060 version 10.2.0 dated 20-12-2010, and 3GPP TS23.401 version 10.2.1 dated 04-01-2011). We would like to solicit WG for further comments and if none then=20 we would like to request WGLC for this document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude/ Thank you, Teemu From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Fri Feb 4 08:00:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E283A69B7; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:00:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ev18zu+XGc4E; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:00:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE1C3A695F; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:00:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110204160001.11999.85167.idtracker@localhost> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:00:01 -0800 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:00:04 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definition of the UUID-based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID) Author(s) : T. Narten, J. Johnson Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2011-02-04 This document defines a new DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID) type, called DUID-UUID. DUID-UUIDs are derived from the already standardized UUID format. DUID-UUID makes it possible for devices to use UUIDs to identify themselves to DHC servers and vice versa. UUIDs are globally unique and readily available on many systems, making them convenient identifiers to leverage within DHCP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-02-04075348.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From narten@us.ibm.com Mon Feb 7 12:39:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB913A69E1 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:39:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1GKtkSYjwE49 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:39:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F46C3A69E0 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:39:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p17KX9gh032331 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:33:09 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p17KdNqK059230 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:39:23 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p17KhteQ005041 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:43:55 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-194-59.mts.ibm.com [9.65.194.59]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p17Khsau004794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:43:55 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p17KdLPc008835 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:39:21 -0500 Message-Id: <201102072039.p17KdLPc008835@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: dhcwg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20110204160001.11999.85167.idtracker@localhost> References: <20110204160001.11999.85167.idtracker@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to Internet-Drafts@ietf.org message dated "Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:00:01 -0800." Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:39:21 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:39:33 -0000 DHC Chairs, This version incorporates comments from Thomas Huth and Stephen Jacob during the WGLC. AFAIK, there are no outstanding issues with this document. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Or can we pass it on to the IESG for further processing? Thomas Internet-Drafts@ietf.org writes: > --NextPart > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF. > Title : Definition of the UUID-based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID) > Author(s) : T. Narten, J. Johnson > Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2011-02-04 > This document defines a new DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID) type, > called DUID-UUID. DUID-UUIDs are derived from the already > standardized UUID format. DUID-UUID makes it possible for devices to > use UUIDs to identify themselves to DHC servers and vice versa. > UUIDs are globally unique and readily available on many systems, > making them convenient identifiers to leverage within DHCP. > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > --NextPart > Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03.txt"; > site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; > directory="internet-drafts" > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-ID: <2011-02-04075348.I-D@ietf.org> > --NextPart > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > --NextPart-- From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Wed Feb 9 19:28:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B75B3A6844 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:28:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id biWSUPogCXqw for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5353D3A680C for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGD00ESOTMO3N@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:28:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGD00FP2TMOGY@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:28:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:27:54 +0800 Received: from SZXEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.193]) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([169.254.173.75]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:27:59 +0800 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:27:59 +0000 From: leaf yeh In-reply-to: <20110209075749.E65BB3A6922@core3.amsl.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.107] To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 Thread-index: AQHLyC9BJtl9t2saLUKZ2bgF79SG3ZP6EI1A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <20110209075749.E65BB3A6922@core3.amsl.com> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:28:01 -0000 FYI, the I.D. has been updated into Ver. -02. It is ready to call for your comments again. The Changes Log is at Section 10. Best regards, Leaf -----Original Message----- From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:58 PM To: leaf yeh Cc: tena@huawei.com; huj@ctbri.com.cn; sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn Subject: New Version Notification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 A new version of I-D, draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Leaf Yeh and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt Revision: 02 Title: Prefix Pool Option for DHCPv6 Relay Agent Creation_date: 2011-02-09 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 12 Abstract: The Prefix Pool option provides an automatic mechanism for the messages exchange between DHCPv6 server and DHCPv6 relay agent. The information about prefix pools maintained on DHCPv6 server can be transferred from server to relay agent through this DHCPv6 option to support the necessary route aggregation on the provide edge router, which has a huge number of routes pointing to the customer networks. The IETF Secretariat. From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu Feb 10 15:49:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4113A6B02 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:49:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esMLrdkjzdAu for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5983A6ADC for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1B0XpZr029830; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:33:57 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.107] (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:49:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4D54796B.9000901@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:48:59 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Hankins References: <20110124174732.30645.86738.idtracker@localhost> <4D473FDE.9080304@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dhc mailing list , dhc chair Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Protocol Action: 'Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ldra-03.txt) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:49:35 -0000 Hi David, David Hankins wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Suresh Krishnan > > wrote: > > Thanks for the comments. > > > Sorry I only noticed this in the IESG diff. No problems. But unfortunately, we cannot make any edits right now since the draft is in the RFC Editor queue. We will try to make the changes at the first possible chance. > > > What you say is correct (the LDRA also listens to network-originated > traffic), but the text in the Security Considerations section was > intended to apply only to the client-initiated IPv6 traffic and does > not talk about the network-originated traffic. In the deployment > scenarios we were targeting, the network-facing interfaces were > considered to be trusted and hence there was no need to perform > rate-limiting on network-originated traffic. Do you see a need to > rate-limit network-originated traffic as well? > > > That is what I expected - but I think someone could easily misinterpret > the existing text. If you have the time or energy to try and make the > statement a bit more direct...I would open with the recommendation to > rate-limit client-originated traffic and close with admitting the only > client-originated traffic the LDRA receives is the one address/port pair > mentioned. Sounds like a good idea. Since the change is purely editorial, we will try to propose the changes for clarification when the draft gets to AUTH48 and see if the wg and the ADs are OK with the nature of the changes. Thanks Suresh From hu.yuxing@zte.com.cn Mon Feb 14 16:43:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E443A6B6F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:43:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQy-+S5gsabU for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2C33A6C2F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 20595262235339; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:38:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 84746.262235339; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:43:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p1F0hh1T038501 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:43:43 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from hu.yuxing@zte.com.cn) To: dhcwg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: hu.yuxing@zte.com.cn Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:43:38 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-02-15 08:43:43, Serialize complete at 2011-02-15 08:43:43 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000455A248257838_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p1F0hh1T038501 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:48:23 -0800 Subject: [dhcwg] What about using a single dhcpv6 server for dual-stack hosts to get ipv6/ipv4 settings? X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:43:35 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000455A248257838_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" RFC4477 described issues identified with dual IP version DHCP interactions and also promotes potential solutions to solve these issues.one solution may be to modify DHCPv6 to be able to return IPv4 information. This solution is hinted at in the DHCPv6 specification: "If there is sufficient interest and demand,integration can be specified in a document that extends DHCPv6 to carry IPv4 addresses and configuration information." This solution may allow DHCP for IPv4 to be completely replaced by DHCPv6 with additional IPv4 information options, for dual-stack nodes. RFC4477 described the advantages and protential problems about the solution. Do you think it make sense to develop this solution in details? It will solve the problems,the content will include: /the client's implementation and behavior /the server's implementation and behavior /the isp network's behavior /compatibility and potential protocl traslation /location identify and AAA -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 000455A248257838_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
RFC4477 described issues identified with dual IP version DHCP interactions and also promotes potential
solutions to solve these issues.one solution may be to modify DHCPv6 to be able to return IPv4 information.

This solution is hinted at in the DHCPv6 specification<xref target="RFC3315"/>: "If there is sufficient
interest and demand,integration can be specified in a document that extends DHCPv6 to carry IPv4
addresses and configuration information." This solution may allow DHCP for IPv4 to be completely replaced
by DHCPv6 with additional IPv4 information options, for dual-stack nodes.

RFC4477 described the advantages and protential problems about the solution.

Do you think it make sense to develop this solution in details? It will solve the problems,the content will include:
/the client's implementation and behavior
/the server's implementation and behavior
/the isp network's behavior
/compatibility and potential protocl traslation
/location identify and AAA
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 000455A248257838_=-- From robertyabad@yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 00:32:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D313A692C for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:32:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4sPsywaSkhY for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm30.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm30.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A434B3A6921 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm30.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Feb 2011 08:33:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.47] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Feb 2011 08:33:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1047.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Feb 2011 08:33:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 434784.67758.bm@omp1047.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 11913 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Feb 2011 08:33:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1298795598; bh=vUzXxwujtY9k0shGhtQPk3QLOD2z7HGAc0g1UY6iVgU=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nK+kex7H0ip5lcsNxplniUkGmtfrv2ndeovsqtQDSVrQs1F1AnxGWq1iGCsJdkZ4dyAspTf8HGGGwYxs6Ve3oG6S+OCTxX6PxdRikY0q1CTnYebPwCOCaKp30tOusZ00RFsGOBmZEqbzwm9vOZDChtMl+GbZuvLjEcFkmFPnUqE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=1BB8sVdnT1suz5y95UztVTc57HkeKuZebdhT0uWpZpblOUvV5XhIZHMBAAR4uODyVBknYcR9L6dGT6p/B9STSqjzPej6IgTAEE7JdkIbZTPAJCtVJFoaJTsmvk69VguLazqZwP8+z6uCRQDWW4iAwN9CWFaVeWaax8R4uaZel+U=; Message-ID: <25909.9543.qm@web112509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: nzD5ywsVM1mqfDl87NRJ3w5OoY8OaTd29q5ZJDHpZyQHp0B c6GYt.fNLR37xrHXkIqR_ayvaFwNo1PZ8wJ0u0Z.gD1I36qcSzW4L4BAmO.9 M65V_xE4OC6FxEwbSnL52Lp7_DijpbWQ9koVMhkSxHaFW.IAso.7hb91JJDi S6r_adRZ5Kd1AZ0f7ALd5tuCzXDlbuFdEKODZgFrBEJC5YkwbwxxaQcH7J_Q jJwntOWwDR3vp8zJqSQzBHPw75ZUAaF41sEDpG1mz9hpwWOidfQqWFTW02Pu MFLoR.I2nX8SGIXqBK4_31bbY3k7jOnRYa.gpkx0sK4ZkzntQmQ-- Received: from [91.86.13.105] by web112509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:33:17 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.292656 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:33:17 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Yabad To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-515224387-1298795597=:9543" Subject: [dhcwg] Assigning IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses via DHCPv6 server X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Robert Yabad List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:32:24 -0000 --0-515224387-1298795597=:9543 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear All, I am trying to configure DHCPv6 server to assign IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses for dual stack hosts. The server must be configured by administrator with IPv6 prefix. The generated IPv6 addresses must be created like : IPv6_prefix + IPv4_address+........ Is that possible to make DHCPv6 server capable to do that without configuring DHCPv6 clients? Thank you,, --0-515224387-1298795597=:9543 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Dear All,
I am trying to configure DHCPv6 server to assign IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses for dual stack hosts. The server must be configured by administrator with IPv6 prefix. The generated IPv6 addresses must be created like :

IPv6_prefix + IPv4_address+........

Is that possible to make DHCPv6 server capable to do that without configuring DHCPv6 clients?

Thank you,,


--0-515224387-1298795597=:9543-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Mon Feb 28 15:03:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADDD3A6CC5 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xPN3+akaC2QH for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A6A3A6CBE for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTWwp6UACtfBPFuvew7OySYr03zLF9XRy@postini.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:10 PST Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF691B8691 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29CE190059; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from kali.ddns.nominum.com (64.89.225.6) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-2-651979489" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:02 -0800 Message-ID: <6507EC39-8EF3-49D4-98B2-FD070405BEC8@nominum.com> References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] What about using a single dhcpv6 server for dual-stack hosts to get ipv6/ipv4 settings? X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:03:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail-2-651979489 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Feb 14, 2011, at 4:43 PM, = wrote: > RFC4477 described issues identified with dual IP version DHCP = interactions and also promotes potential=20 > solutions to solve these issues.one solution may be to modify DHCPv6 = to be able to return IPv4 information.=20 We've discussed that in the past and pretty much rejected it because it = would add a lot of complexity and the functionality is only useful = during the transitional period when hosts are running dual-stack. Is = there some reason why DHCPv4+DHCPv6 isn't an option? --Apple-Mail-2-651979489 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" hu.yuxing@zte.com.cn> &nb= sp;<hu.yuxing@zte.com.cn> = wrote:
RFC4477 described issues identified with = dual IP version DHCP interactions and also promotes potential 
solutions to solve these issues.one solution may be = to modify DHCPv6 to be able to return IPv4 information. 

We've discussed that in the past and pretty much rejected it = because it would add a lot of complexity and the functionality is only = useful during the transitional period when hosts are running dual-stack. =   Is there some reason why DHCPv4+DHCPv6 isn't an = option?

= --Apple-Mail-2-651979489-- From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Feb 28 18:48:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189A93A6C80; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:48:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UD-YfKZxkz0l; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1B23A6C6F; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 74DA9E0736; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:49:07 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110301024907.74DA9E0736@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:49:07 -0800 (PST) Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [dhcwg] RFC 6148 on DHCPv4 Lease Query by Relay Agent Remote ID X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:48:06 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6148 Title: DHCPv4 Lease Query by Relay Agent Remote ID Author: P. Kurapati, R. Desetti, B. Joshi Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: February 2011 Mailbox: kurapati@juniper.net, ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com, bharat_joshi@infosys.com Pages: 13 Characters: 26185 Updates: RFC4388 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-09.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6148.txt Some relay agents extract lease information from the DHCP messages exchanged between the client and DHCP server. This lease information is used by relay agents for various purposes like antispoofing and prevention of flooding. RFC 4388 defines a mechanism for relay agents to retrieve the lease information from the DHCP server when this information is lost. The existing lease query mechanism is data-driven, which means that a relay agent can initiate the lease query only when it starts receiving data to and from the clients. In certain scenarios, this model is not scalable. This document first looks at issues in the existing mechanism and then proposes a new query type, query by Remote ID, to address these issues. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC