From remi.despres@free.fr Fri Apr 1 00:39:44 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 0E7BA3A6AF8 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:39:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 myBXDCXHSwoT for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (smtp21.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299F03A6BEC for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2118.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4077E7000090; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dhcp-45cd.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-45cd.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.69.205]) by msfrf2118.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BE8BA700008B; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:41:21 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20110401074121780.BE8BA700008B@msfrf2118.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: <4D9495E0.5030404@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:41:21 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4D9495E0.5030404@gmail.com> To: Tomasz Mrugalski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: DHC WG , draft-despres-intarea-4rd@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-despres-intarea-4rd comments 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, 01 Apr 2011 07:39:44 -0000 Hi Tomasz, Comments in line. Le 31 mars 2011 =E0 16:55, Tomasz Mrugalski a =E9crit : > I have partially read the draft (mostly the parts related to DHCPv6) = and > would like to provide my comments. I may have additional comments as I > finish proper reading throughout the draft. >=20 > First, I'm sorry if my comments may seem a bit harsh, but the = currently > proposed option format is catastrophic. It is basically several > suboptions stuffed together with suboption-like type and length coded = on > nibbles, rather than usual 2 byte fields, with some suboptions being > optional. These parameters should clearly be defined as separate = options > (possibly grouped together as suboptions within an option for = clarity). Thanks for expressing a view, this was the goal of this presentation. No catastrophy ahead, there is enough time make proposal that reach = consensus in the WG. > Defined that way, it would be much easier to parse/build such options = by > involved entities. I will also be less problematic to support by > implementations that also definition of custom options. Luckily, that > can be fixed quite easily. Hopefully, there are no (or very limited) > implementations, so redoing the option layout should be no problem. No implementation I heard of includes the DHCPv6 part of the draft. > There are no usual DHCPv6 Server or Client Behavior sections. Although > not strictly required, they are very convienient for vendors that are > looking for clean list of requirements that they must meet to claim = spec > conformance. >=20 > There is no mention of DHCPv6 related problems in Security > Considerations section whatsoever. This should be analysed a bit and > commented in the text (possibly briefly if there are no new issues = here, > with just pointers to existing RFCs). No 4rd specific security concern about dhcpv6 ahd been identified, and = RFC 5969 on 6rd has no such mention. Yet, if you have a particular suggestion, why not? > Also, I have a procedural recommendation. I happen to have worked on > DHCPv6 option for another IPv4-IPv6 coexistence architecture. The = actual > architecture and the DHCPv6 operation were specified in separate, but > closely related documents. It worked really well, because discussed > problems and review groups are mostly orthogonal. They could also > possibly follow separate adoption paths (or perhaps not, but that is > something that should be possibly considered). Doing it earlier might have been more complex than needed, but doing it = for a later version does make sense to me. A volunteer for te DHCPv6 draft will be welcome (I am clearly not an = expert of this WG). > Remi asked for DHC experts to provide help with this. I'm not sure if = I > qualify to that distinction, but I'm happily volunteering for work on > this. I will coordinate with Remi and other authors how they would = like > to organize the work. > Hope that helps, IMHO, it does, thank you. Regards, RD > Tomek Mrugalski > ISC From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Fri Apr 1 05:03:16 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 957A828CA18 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 ziV18ke22kF0 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B1E28CA21 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so2676791bwz.31 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I8Dm3BuQS1HpBkbxNzjT8C+a/eZPSgKzVL7OgkRz38Q=; b=pip+zBwMKjJ3VKDd2j+w3nhobMUu3hNmNH6+KVLkVn2DOOR9c75yI/OH5FO/BeN1rL WCjFy/mYLU+2VyEmMVr++ML+NwDidBh3+RcH2IMG9qFiTztXmO7vvz+NFmEKXREzFpJ2 Mdiao6aZXU1AGtUuYb16hwbrgDvHqvpulhRQ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QWQOSjJ7PwECJHf+Fip9zBgUs93Q6G7oXn0F/He/ouj68kTf5stjaGq7BUEINaZPdu 8XFAiO7leLfQHxI6iq7A+kneJVYetSFtxIavTVQ3/jH/Yvmw/wJmzlmrt53zrQlpgolT TXwf7IpMWre002vb2kXGKXr4AAtE9agu6Vix0= Received: by 10.204.10.21 with SMTP id n21mr644535bkn.77.1301659340100; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-11aa.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-11aa.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm1354526bkm.18.2011.04.01.05.02.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D95BEC5.8050801@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:02:13 +0200 From: Tomasz Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= References: <4D9495E0.5030404@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: DHC WG , draft-despres-intarea-4rd@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-despres-intarea-4rd comments 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, 01 Apr 2011 12:03:16 -0000 On 11-04-01 09:41, Rémi Després wrote: >> First, I'm sorry if my comments may seem a bit harsh, but the currently >> proposed option format is catastrophic. It is basically several >> suboptions stuffed together with suboption-like type and length coded on >> nibbles, rather than usual 2 byte fields, with some suboptions being >> optional. These parameters should clearly be defined as separate options >> (possibly grouped together as suboptions within an option for clarity). > > Thanks for expressing a view, this was the goal of this presentation. > No catastrophy ahead, there is enough time make proposal that reach consensus in the WG. I would like to withdraw my comment and apologize for using such strong words. What I really meant is that such complicated format may easily be misimplemented, that could even lead to client crashes. While it has benefits of being very compact, we have agreed that following standard DHCPv6 format would be better way to move forward as long as all currently defined parameters are delivered to clients. >> There is no mention of DHCPv6 related problems in Security >> Considerations section whatsoever. This should be analysed a bit and >> commented in the text (possibly briefly if there are no new issues here, >> with just pointers to existing RFCs). > > No 4rd specific security concern about dhcpv6 ahd been identified, and RFC 5969 on 6rd has no such mention. Thank you for clarifying that. I'll add appropriate comment to that effect. >> Also, I have a procedural recommendation. I happen to have worked on >> DHCPv6 option for another IPv4-IPv6 coexistence architecture. The actual >> architecture and the DHCPv6 operation were specified in separate, but >> closely related documents. It worked really well, because discussed >> problems and review groups are mostly orthogonal. They could also >> possibly follow separate adoption paths (or perhaps not, but that is >> something that should be possibly considered). > > > Doing it earlier might have been more complex than needed, but doing it for a later version does make sense to me. > A volunteer for te DHCPv6 draft will be welcome (I am clearly not an expert of this WG). I have volunteered to be an editor of this draft and discussed this with Remi, who accepted my proposal. If others are interested in this, please contact Remi and myself. Tomek Mrugalski ISC From rajiva@cisco.com Sun Apr 3 04:00:42 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 594463A6984 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 04:00:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.292 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 IOEIfTuvjAFw for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 04:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217C03A67B2 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 04:00:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=184; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301828542; x=1303038142; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to:cc; bh=+qN+d8tvvcFVK9iM5OOIXcRmcN0HSbtFyaMVqDTjuCk=; b=W8DLgkSVqKnjDrWq/9DU+8eAxD4HaeVFd+rm4FdWC08OCk/JqtevnWSY invUjFm+bHpfsnGTbOgQqNgY0Kf4W9O+4P7hZzwWbgAEzMSiy6hnUA3Km c2D/xZuEh1yl7ZviMKlgxUzJALOiL9YLpSWR4Hu5OtO6E3hvyY+C/lmO8 Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAI9SmE2tJXG//2dsb2JhbAClYXemGZpyhWsEhUeLPQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,291,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="423027861" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2011 11:02:21 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p33B2Lko032504; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:02:21 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 3 Apr 2011 06:02:21 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 06:02:20 -0500 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C04905E0E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 Thread-Index: AcvwvmvXzCHd+ukFSkSNyX8FCnzm+g== From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Ted Lemon" , "John Jason Brzozowski" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2011 11:02:21.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B14C050:01CBF1EE] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:18:24 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 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: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:00:42 -0000 Given the positive feedback during the WG meeting on Thu, the authors would like to request the WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00. Thanks. Cheers, Rajiv =20 From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Tue Apr 5 04:44:58 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 1C1FE3A692E for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:44:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 jpjhQlug5ZEP for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F983A6403 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so102619ewy.31 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AiS4do7x8B/LZ+eypp6I3iI2Rvud4TB1iPMfFSzMcb8=; b=XbGNyvrQK1mF2AtWP+tzhMi8xbiS0kkH4Jz9arcm/qy4iIFXdD3nfEydOeT2tvgdkd Fbk1AX4L484NfJyRPsQ/D4rsZahFQIGtQPZjlQ6Xz5RWOav5FVfKN6CZh0MVy6+snCKO 2ceyEaM2py1DiJtCtL8h+F29HR7/84NTtMI54= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KHuAx4oINA7lD0IJKoMqXZFoBhG6aOZ4i+4qWONvNWySCLKhFrt14J1HUCwl9xuBDR Mg6/OFY5yHhW/yWeL/yMaptLKT3z1ILta+f7Ww3dDJ8ykTckGlSkUn7HV2+H3ClB9f9h F0GXlVHikDtrlBwdyXaPdO/swYGN0RO0Gk8Bo= Received: by 10.213.4.196 with SMTP id 4mr207228ebs.15.1302003992666; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x11sm352680eeh.1.2011.04.05.04.46.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D9B0113.3060502@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:46:27 +0200 From: Tomasz Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon , "Brzozowski, John" , dhcwg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Redundancy considerations draft adoptions 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, 05 Apr 2011 11:44:58 -0000 Dear chairs, dear group, Last week during WG meeting in Prague I asked for confirmation that DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations draft is to be accepted as WG item. Chairs agreed, but wanted to confirm on mailing list. I would like to ask for draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01 adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise them now. Note: Intended status of this draft is BCP. Thanks, Tomek Mrugalski ISC Link to (currently expired) draft: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01.txt From budmillwood@gmail.com Wed Apr 6 02:50:33 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 4BC723A68F1 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 6Zlxfey92j6K for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EEF3A68E6 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so1232655wyb.31 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:52:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ITOlIq9eCrwMiflXsBOxWRRgeU8vosBRubuXQiAOYsw=; b=G6a5UTkRtIE9TPkYOPpf4KKyKo/t6Tuf8Bw22vT5abhNdtL5N3G2vRESyIY/xAgbQC JjW3gGxBTNh/06RAYUK2ADVjrabzutzOLgoi6G9yBCeoMdVY/CrV9y8iQGGf3BpcTwqT xymc+wucvlLwMZauFVGvfOVWaaPU7GPBVHYHI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=u2rMxt5G+przACxdWYTC8BSpb384GYUjrhK25ffGyKGJCfE5RuQznWeiC4VJJJsznl 1OvPCl/TjT5rZ8zYAJheS2m3LFAEEjMZKROe/us6CHf8x9tdUInW0MZQzk6AsowFPS6y TwIpJI9KBx/dacf/qQ6YBJz/qm7YhruMhSBCQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.202.80 with SMTP id fd16mr778950wbb.229.1302083534397; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.183.204 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 02:52:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D9B0113.3060502@gmail.com> References: <4D9B0113.3060502@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:52:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bud Millwood To: Tomasz Mrugalski Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd7616689201004a03cf23b Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Ted Lemon , "Brzozowski, John" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Redundancy considerations draft adoptions 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:50:33 -0000 --000e0cd7616689201004a03cf23b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 No objections, quite the contrary. We're wondering why this approach is being considered, because as far as we can tell, the DHCPv4 failover state machine does not require too much modification to support inter-server communication. But we'll wait for this discussion to get started! - Bud On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tomasz Mrugalski wrote: > Dear chairs, dear group, > Last week during WG meeting in Prague I asked for confirmation that > DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations draft is to be accepted as WG item. > Chairs agreed, but wanted to confirm on mailing list. > > I would like to ask for draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01 > adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise them > now. > > Note: Intended status of this draft is BCP. > > Thanks, > Tomek Mrugalski > ISC > > Link to (currently expired) draft: > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01.txt > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > --000e0cd7616689201004a03cf23b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No objections, quite the contrary. We're wondering why this approach is= being considered, because as far as we can tell, the DHCPv4 failover state= machine does not require too much modification to support inter-server com= munication. But we'll wait for this discussion to get started!

- Bud

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:46 P= M, Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear chairs, dear group,
Last week during WG meeting in Prague I asked for confirmation that
DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations draft is to be accepted as WG item.
Chairs agreed, but wanted to confirm on mailing list.

I would like to ask for draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01
adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise them
now.

Note: Intended status of this draft is BCP.

Thanks,
Tomek Mrugalski
ISC

Link to (currently expired) draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6= -redundancy-consider-01.txt
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

--000e0cd7616689201004a03cf23b-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Thu Apr 7 00:30:02 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 827163A688C; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, 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 LtufZ6TW0r7j; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93CF3A6814; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:30:01 -0700 (PDT) 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: 3.15 Message-ID: <20110407073001.13234.57094.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:30:01 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-05.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, 07 Apr 2011 07:30:02 -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 : Layer 2 Relay Agent Information Author(s) : B. Joshi, P. Kurapati Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-05.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-04-06 In some networks, DHCP servers rely on Relay Agent Information option appended by Relay Agents for IP address and other parameter assignment policies. This works fine when end hosts are directly connected to Relay Agents. In some network configurations, one or more Layer 2 devices may reside between DHCP clients and Relay agent. In these network scenarios, it is difficult to use the Relay Agent Information option for IP address and other parameter assignment policies effectively. So there is a need for the device that is closest to the end hosts to append a Relay Agent Information option in DHCP messages. These devices are typically known as Layer 2 Relay Agents. This document aims to describe the network scenarios where a Layer 2 Relay Agent is in use and also how it handles DHCP messages. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-05.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-l2ra-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-04-07001629.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sat Apr 9 14:48:30 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 539AB3A696F for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:48:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 Ws88Gpgxc2Ri for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9020E3A68CB for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTaDUlygC7aZj1BcI34s2GWPfZTkuj04p@postini.com; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 14:50:16 PDT 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 E4CDBF80AC for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 BAD95190065; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (64.215.212.152) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:50:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1203) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <4D9B0113.3060502@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:50:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <10722D8E-6318-4607-A21F-05A339FAF3C1@nominum.com> References: <4D9B0113.3060502@gmail.com> To: Tomasz Mrugalski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1203) Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "Brzozowski, John" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Redundancy considerations draft adoptions 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: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:48:30 -0000 On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Tomasz Mrugalski wrote: > I would like to ask for draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01 > adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise = them > now. Strictly speaking, the chairs are supposed to do the call for adoption, = but given our stellar performance in recent months, I'm going to pretend = that that's what happened, since your message was phrased correctly. I = will assess consensus (since this is originally John's draft) next = Tuesday afternoon. FTR, I am in favor of adoption, and thus far have seen several messages = in favor and none in opposition. So if anyone thinks this is a bad = idea, better speak up. From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Sun Apr 17 12:20:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD8DE0771 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id opFYF8M-z57y for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9AFE0717 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1542181eye.31 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S1s/daYKVnbEGUJGEq2Akns5eI2lTcmS8v17RZqymVg=; b=acCmzITzb5jvCnQEKtx2twX/ffQNBkNrknRU/sUxl5O4TH6BuKHVRBw0g/i24fPCiw Z8OSOxJvsoZxHDSh+mElYQMGxci6LbSH3k+XHtz76Wv0Nxcqvha6oDcWrMDx5bnfxgkb 1/YqhxDTYPZdu7pvGI/5QHkXHQaAG5vD+O5jk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HU38+b2KDrVvTsS+i+Y/OvwmKxkmHZARv0tAWKq+I2LZB4u/d5fnRfQr/LkplPQhmm FEy/bl38MG25dgWy6o9xB7M9mMoE4AvUKfW10b3glPkGeyh7J1fM0+9M+T284bg2jbjU w+KLRPirVayied4nOIzFUdMPhAW2z8p0O6f3w= Received: by 10.213.21.142 with SMTP id j14mr3611484ebb.26.1303068029341; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MacBook-Tomasz-Mrugalski.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm3578873eeh.27.2011.04.17.12.20.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DAB3D79.6070405@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:20:25 +0200 From: Tomasz Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DHC WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [dhcwg] Requesting sub-options in DHCPv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:20:32 -0000 Dear WG, RFC3315 does not define any way to request sub-options (options that do not appear within DHCPv6 message directly, but rather within other options). After discussing this matter with Ted Lemon, I wrote a simple draft that clarifies that multiple instances of ORO may be used for this purpose. Each instance should be placed within specified scope, e.g. within IA_PD or other option, where client expects to receive requested options. The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions/ I'd like to ask for your comments and suggestions. If you don't like proposed idea, please provide alternate way for requesting sub-options. Tomek -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions-01 Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:08:12 -0700 (PDT) From: IETF I-D Submission Tool To: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com A new version of I-D, draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Tomasz Mrugalski and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions Revision: 01 Title: Requesting Suboptions in DHCPv6 Creation_date: 2011-04-17 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 7 Abstract: DHCPv6 clients may use Option Request Option (ORO) defined in RFC3315 [RFC3315] to specify, which options they would like to have configured by DHCPv6 servers. Clients may also be interested in specific options that do not appear in DHCPv6 message directly (top- level options), but rather as nested options or sub-options (i.e. options conveyed within other options). This document clarifies how to use already defined ORO to request specific options within scopes other than top-level. This document updates RFC3315. From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Apr 18 15:00:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979B1E07DB; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8xhYXA30b4a; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfc.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108C9E07F0; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) 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: 3.52 Message-ID: <20110418220002.14258.20576.idtracker@ietfc.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:00:02 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-00.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:00:02 -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 : DHCPv6 Redundancy Deployment Considerations Author(s) : J. Brzozowski, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2011-04-09 This document documents some deployment considerations for those who wishing to use DHCPv6 to support their deployment of IPv6. Specifically, providing semi-redundant DHCPv6 services is discussed in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-00.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-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-04-18145550.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Tue Apr 19 05:15:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA848E0663; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CzXflmHsIIcL; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfc.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52EFE00BE; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT) 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: 3.52 Message-ID: <20110419121501.12763.33574.idtracker@ietfc.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:15:01 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-00.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:15:03 -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 : Configuring Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) using DHCPv6 Author(s) : S. Jiang, Z. Xia Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2011-04-11 A Cryptographically Generated Address is an IPv6 addresses binding with a public/private key pair. However, the current CGA specifications are lack of procedures to enable proper management of the usage of CGAs. This document defines the process using DHCPv6 to manage CGAs in detail. A new DHCPv6 option is defined accordingly. This document also analyses the configuration of the parameters, which are used to generate CGAs, using DHCPv6. Although the document does not define new DHCPv6 option to carry these parameters for various reasons, the configuration procedure is described. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-00.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-cga-config-dhcpv6-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-04-19050723.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Tue Apr 19 12:18:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D399E0689 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmpmodUZ5+Vx for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3889E0675 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTa3gEV6nu0Ms/2tMTITjxYuHou75rn/G@postini.com; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:42 PDT 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 00CBEF8008 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 E9C9A190064 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from kali.ddns.nominum.com (64.89.225.40) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:40 -0700 From: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:39 -0700 Message-ID: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1213) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1213) Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:18:43 -0000 We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was = work done off list, but no responses on-list. If you support this = work, please indicate that you support it. If you oppose the work, = please provide suggestions, comments, or reasons why it's entirely a bad = idea. Assuming that we get some comments between now and next Friday, we will = determine consensus next Friday (May 29). From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 00:34:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFE1E06A4 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVy6I7yfQYkn for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A48EE0697 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so163792ewy.31 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=eFb2WXstUSMgkDhIoX2m44MoROzytgRS734dfvNqhHc=; b=Cm2bohOiDpl3NnyDHcAvc90Pm0j3Sq4L8t+DRzMUy4yipf0Fu9GhMCoQaK8A4KC0Dv NjeB4DvA0SJB20Ymub6Ivpegzrth6adcHSQvlRWFMXh/xl18XqMNuxhwD+X1SY3suPgY UVxknIuxs3kNMFyR0mzcXV76H52+E07/3dAN4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=Nr2dvkhbr86JeVBYdwvcrZZ5+yz8YaBw0FOg2oCJDMgpl0sCPFWhqmzcoxJhESfmD/ +g39XyFzLjG2Ym6TJJmnL3kEdz4ElKnkt+zt3GbJNmf9BfwU3MbBELYrfGiKDdn5OSNO EiYf1eEkvFhCB4LSih+zQaG85H67bGQdDMqnQ= Received: by 10.213.26.16 with SMTP id b16mr1474709ebc.54.1303284885594; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gomlefisk.cisco.com (184.84-48-218.nextgentel.com [84.48.218.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m55sm455793eei.15.2011.04.20.00.34.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:34:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:34:47 -0000 > We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was = work done off list, but no responses on-list. If you support this = work, please indicate that you support it. If you oppose the work, = please provide suggestions, comments, or reasons why it's entirely a bad = idea. >=20 > Assuming that we get some comments between now and next Friday, we = will determine consensus next Friday (May 29). I'm obviously in support, but as a co-author that shouldn't count for = much. ;-) to summarize what this draft does: in a typical DHCP-PD based ISP deployment, the ISP edge device (BNG) has = two routes in the RIB per customer. one /64 route for the link-net between BNG and RG and one /48-/56 for = the customers delegated prefix. the exclude option lets the ISP delegate a prefix - 1, resulting in a = single aggregate route in the RIB per customer. this is vital for 3GPP deployments, that has a (who knows why) limit of = a single prefix per customer. cheers, Ole= From jyrki.soini@teliasonera.com Thu Apr 21 00:22:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFA2E071B for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJhisEa6rl28 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.tele.fi (smtp.tele.fi [192.89.123.25]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D101E070B for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-Ip: [131.177.70.25] Received: from smtp.extra.sonera.fi (smtp.extra.sonera.fi [131.177.70.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.tele.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D9C27C5; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:22:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp.dave.sonera.fi (smtp.dave.sonera.fi [131.177.120.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.extra.sonera.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7ECE1EE8CB; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:22:22 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [131.177.117.158] (ws1158.secureuser.sonera.fi [131.177.117.158]) by smtp.dave.sonera.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A16558037; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:22:23 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4DAFDB2F.1090309@teliasonera.com> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:22:23 +0300 From: Jyrki Soini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:22:27 -0000 On 21:59, Ted Lemon wrote: > We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was work done off list, but no responses on-list. If you support this work, please indicate that you support it. If you oppose the work, please provide suggestions, comments, or reasons why it's entirely a bad idea. > > Assuming that we get some comments between now and next Friday, we will determine consensus next Friday (May 29). > > I'm in favor of this draft. It solves the problem on 3GPP network specs and is backwards compatible. -- Jyrki Soini From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Fri Apr 22 17:44:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0FCE0694 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0HDeLRH51Vt for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C870E066B for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTbIg7SVVD7EdDg0FYzzpeTym7pb4zVzJ@postini.com; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:30 PDT 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 7962BF8051 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 663F519006D; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from kali.ddns.nominum.com (64.89.225.143) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1216) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:28 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> To: Ole Troan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1216) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:44:31 -0000 On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > I'm obviously in support, but as a co-author that shouldn't count for = much. ;-) Of course it counts. BTW, FTR, I'm in favor of the draft as well. From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Sat Apr 23 16:07:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FA2E0663 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AEaZCPRjpR3l for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0022E0613 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so560285ewy.31 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=Lu7RkgSNGt+HwKv0nZwOEiTZ74M5Wk211Y7y/QAvrBY=; b=amNhR76NwYBCI+/kYtN5BphkVafNRk+/GAw7u3XRO5ROD/aZ/Sb/uqmLryV4F4YBis BZA/I63uagQa+ipnGlOnP/2zTlmP7Wo1nDAuW7O2rdOCkHmAz2q/ZYMtkz6rMOkuNJ5W IqsqAWzXLdnrCgtcJ4E5fR8OiALU9t3PV599g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=k1/SobXZIj4d49ty4VUGGFl6BQ6yJkoGQWfRlhy3WgY0VaWT+AtjeFjnIOrXpambBY XbcjLOAB+uk/NF4V5c8p13Go+/ZKymM8inSUw1wTtIiKqutQy7rT3NoRWzn0iq5e6JF6 wwviQaEnFrYCAAk/JZjDFtVjHsJMPm5cDC8tA= Received: by 10.14.122.201 with SMTP id t49mr808823eeh.25.1303600061480; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-112-141-112.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-141-112.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.141.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s49sm1727125eei.26.2011.04.23.16.07.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:07:35 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:07:44 -0000 Obviously I am in favor of this ;) And we do have a real need for the = solution, whether we like it or not (in 3GPP deployments). The good = thing is that the solution is backwards compatible, e.g. if waste of = prefixes is fine for the operator it can use RFC3633 as-is. If some day = in the future things get better on the architectures where the = pd-exclude is needed (like imagine 3GPP getting unnumbered bearers or = being fine with non-aggregated prefixes), the pd-exclude can just be = turned off. - Jouni On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was = work done off list, but no responses on-list. If you support this = work, please indicate that you support it. If you oppose the work, = please provide suggestions, comments, or reasons why it's entirely a bad = idea. >=20 > Assuming that we get some comments between now and next Friday, we = will determine consensus next Friday (May 29). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Sun Apr 24 20:22:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712B2E00BE for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOu8t15vleTC for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD99E0670 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LK600317UNF2P@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:21:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LK6008DMUNDUT@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:21:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:21:11 +0800 Received: from SZXEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.159]) by SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.31]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:21:09 +0800 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:21:09 +0000 From: Leaf yeh In-reply-to: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C04905E0E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.133] To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 Thread-index: AcvwvmvXzCHd+ukFSkSNyX8FCnzm+gSLQEpw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C04905E0E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:22:51 -0000 Question for Clarification: draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 raised the requirement of configuration on Relay for some specified use case, such as RFC4364, and suggested a new general option for the parameter configuration on the Relay . But the options for the solution on the parameter configuration on the Relay seems to me are: the Parameter Request List (option 55) defined in DHCPv4, " This option is used by a DHCP client to request values for specified configuration parameters. The list of requested parameters is specified as n octets, where each octet is a valid DHCP option code as defined in this document. The client MAY list the options in order of preference. The DHCP server is not required to return the options in the requested order, but MUST try to insert the requested options in the order requested by the client. The code for this option is 55. Its minimum length is 1. Code Len Option Codes | 55 | n | c1 | c2 | ... cited from RFC2132 section 9.8, and the Option Request Option (option 6) defined in DHCPv6, " The Option Request option is used to identify a list of options in a message between a client and a server. The format of the Option Request option is: | OPTION_ORO | option-len | | requested-option-code-1 | requested-option-code-2 | | ... option-code OPTION_ORO (6). option-len 2 * number of requested options. requested-option-code-n The option code for an option requested by the client. A client MAY include an Option Request option in a Solicit, Request, Renew, Rebind, Confirm or Information-request message to inform the server about options the client wants the server to send to the client. A server MAY include an Option Request option in a Reconfigure option to indicate which options the client should request from the server. cited from RFC3315 section 22.7. The question requesting for the clarification here is what the benefits or advantages could be got from the new suggested option, named relay configuration option, over the potential extending usage on the option 55 defined in DHCPv4 & option 6 defined in DHCPv6? In another word, why we don't use the options already defined for the solution on the parameter configuration on the Relay? Best Regards, Leaf -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rajiv Asati (rajiva) Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 7:02 PM To: Ted Lemon; John Jason Brzozowski Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 Given the positive feedback during the WG meeting on Thu, the authors would like to request the WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00. Thanks. Cheers, Rajiv _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sun Apr 24 22:31:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D403EE069D for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:47 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pPr5BbSpqFPo for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E352FE0653 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTbUHPTFDBZyu6DjKJt12EP13sKUyluvU@postini.com; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:43 PDT 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 90174F800A for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 84FB6190065 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from [10.1.10.10] (173.162.214.218) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:31:41 -0700 From: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:31:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:31:48 -0000 The working group discussed this draft in Prague and there was interest = in taking on the work. The draft is an attempt to solve the problem of = how to use CGAs and other host-generated addresses with DHCP. If you = are in favor of taking on this work, please let us know. If you think = this is work the working group should not do, please let us know. If = you think the draft doesn't adequately address the problem at present, = please get involved. I will evaluate the working group consensus on adopting this work on = Friday, May 6. From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Apr 25 09:01:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A790E06C5 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rs-Kv4kkAtmB for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34EBE0665 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p3PG1mbx013317; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:01:50 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.107] (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:01:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:00:10 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:01:52 -0000 Hi Ted, On 11-04-22 08:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >> I'm obviously in support, but as a co-author that shouldn't count for much. ;-) > > Of course it counts. BTW, FTR, I'm in favor of the draft as well. I support this draft going forward (I am a co-author as well). Thanks Suresh From jiangsheng@huawei.com Mon Apr 25 18:06:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA979E068C for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3KnHi9GhNpZ3 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139FEE0688 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LK800BFJJ314K@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:06:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LK8008U0J308G@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:06:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.59) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:06:31 +0800 Received: from SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.122]) by szxeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([fe80::75b7:3db9:fedc:a56d%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:06:35 +0800 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:06:34 +0000 From: Jiangsheng In-reply-to: <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.101] To: Suresh Krishnan , Ted Lemon Message-id: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 Thread-index: AQHL/saig+aus8b4k0OMZIXjwUC8WZRl1ykAgAREYACABCSCAIABHpdw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:06:46 -0000 Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:00 AM > To: Ted Lemon > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 > > Hi Ted, > > On 11-04-22 08:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > >> I'm obviously in support, but as a co-author that shouldn't count > for much. ;-) > > > > Of course it counts. BTW, FTR, I'm in favor of the draft as well. > > I support this draft going forward (I am a co-author as well). > > Thanks > Suresh > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From phdgang@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 19:15:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D59E0685 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jv6CDf7Ohbv for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A37E062A for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so185397pvh.31 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ivp9+KkGe91yDxOroHHyu83yY9NIr3IZ0VZ957e6qUA=; b=Sax/zMZLyBeVCy24X9vs9viUBfONnrL+dX402lBsHyzKWgqtzLymFGamqYhsAMy5bg KVedPQS5yfPm3iWG1A3uHaXeFJGxElNw7j0ZPGhjhXlLkwDEDyBG4xv3iflTNHXE6DgQ NLjGs94gqYaKFvyrbxJDM8lOfsKW/GSZrsjUo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=hOtEyj+584CtQBcVi2juMNLQ8rruorp1AXe02Jqs7Xho+Am/GIPurW2YTX3D6fAHqZ LMTz8FuV89lVQ7JtOd3ZwSDO2pEebqOwGcqgcPWYps3s8NBSTdgfx0Lb3PHjxwjkqJkc X5LlWIbOtRlCfKPKAK5pU4NZrJHDu0y3NdKIQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.43.2 with SMTP id s2mr264059pbl.424.1303784151695; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.135 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:15:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:15:50 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: Jiangsheng Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:15:53 -0000 I support this work. 3GPP network could benefit from new defined PD option. Gang 2011/4/26, Jiangsheng : > Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P > > Regards, > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Suresh Krishnan >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:00 AM >> To: Ted Lemon >> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org WG >> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 >> >> Hi Ted, >> >> On 11-04-22 08:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> > On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> I'm obviously in support, but as a co-author that shouldn't count >> for much. ;-) >> > >> > Of course it counts. BTW, FTR, I'm in favor of the draft as well. >> >> I support this draft going forward (I am a co-author as well). >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dhcwg mailing list >> dhcwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > From gwz@net-zen.net Mon Apr 25 19:28:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509B1E06AB for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:28:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6DFMF0b3TMkU for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 95C26E069E for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24670 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2011 02:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.122.190.50) by p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.230) with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2011 02:28:44 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:28:37 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: GangChen References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010600020601050101060407" Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:28:46 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010600020601050101060407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/26/2011 9:15 AM, GangChen wrote: > I support this work. 3GPP network could benefit from new defined PD option. > > Gang > 2011/4/26, Jiangsheng : >> Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P Just out of curiosity, is this option known or believed to be useful to anyone _except_ 3GPP? ... --------------010600020601050101060407 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------010600020601050101060407-- From phdgang@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 19:42:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCF5E06B8 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27vOyZ3aUlPi for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14063E06B7 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so220018pwi.31 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WRycGQO1CGxgWXt1s5JhD+UzeJO+icicbAJ5ZALTPJI=; b=Fhez7n7b0G1n3H+mudG7AIVkSVI6Oym636EA3EMgEepi/Ck7e8wHMglQzONLX3nMoJ M3aaKcnPcydR+C9VWrBsPMiWO96lm/KFTIsbVnkpaj3MJCBPX+1H/ii/8NkjVZt2IbHw E8M96/MYuOY/NfKRghTAexvODcs4Tm/L4HFuA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=KWdfPjunKJStIIW8QaZ5EhGuBtzfHL2zaHEOltDnp6/cr7VxqDYMnU/CKPZJNGCozZ FO3yI26R5kPm+rIF8unaLg25UH3WPw6FgstDk3wvoKNSkfV+svrR+psHPVvJZ+knnysX 8EMrN5Aa0FxR8Q9PFSbcPd6cS/uJzHFbUiJfs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.27.100 with SMTP id s4mr294130pbg.491.1303785753015; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.135 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> References: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:42:32 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:42:35 -0000 I support this draft going forward. It is applicable to point-to-point link model. Gang 2011/4/25, Ted Lemon : > The working group discussed this draft in Prague and there was interest in > taking on the work. The draft is an attempt to solve the problem of how to > use CGAs and other host-generated addresses with DHCP. If you are in favor > of taking on this work, please let us know. If you think this is work the > working group should not do, please let us know. If you think the draft > doesn't adequately address the problem at present, please get involved. > > I will evaluate the working group consensus on adopting this work on Friday, > May 6. > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 21:58:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5FAE06CE for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2x29W4jJiyE for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D29FE067C for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so205735fxm.31 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=O8H9VST1iBRmgvXl1CSNS4v/8mSlkAPYEfehje8KTpY=; b=vgrfQ7eqfSDKhNLHiFR9ECwHifnUJIZx7ndBwXuXxtJOtDt8t7Sq4nXfezgUHlimnF oqLyqO3U1mxwjKKvl+KNztR78YBwrNgSYEjv3rBtAGpdfLoO9oFxdBsIwRMH/2YAfm/D tUU3ZZK8vd0wmxHxDpJFbjH+X2VSE6BNbzsUQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=txUBetMOOf4jVifgYiUgHTxY21t9c/Rz867zKLiPwC/xrJN/s8IwcpI75xvxcAksv7 D2B/b0+9iYZU90qXhCJd+bhqdOHZtrTHBTrnQDuIPuTrKdY6j8b5UzTFG3S4XuVRThY7 avtLw59oxUmOqLBEos1N4PmjJb4upRXdtEGfs= Received: by 10.223.127.210 with SMTP id h18mr289398fas.79.1303793878788; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [62.237.209.68] ([62.237.209.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c24sm1862663fak.7.2011.04.25.21.57.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:57:24 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> To: Glen Zorn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:58:00 -0000 See for example = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11100.html - jouni On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 4/26/2011 9:15 AM, GangChen wrote: >> I support this work. 3GPP network could benefit from new defined PD = option. >>=20 >> Gang >> 2011/4/26, Jiangsheng : >>> Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P >=20 > Just out of curiosity, is this option known or believed to be useful = to > anyone _except_ 3GPP? >=20 > ... > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From gwz@net-zen.net Mon Apr 25 22:28:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BD1E06D1 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqZ9BApVZCrV for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C7D11E06CD for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 28168 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2011 05:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.122.190.50) by p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.90) with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2011 05:28:47 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB65809.9080204@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:28:41 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jouni korhonen References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010506000701080203040206" Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:28:49 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010506000701080203040206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/26/2011 11:57 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > > See for example http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11100.html OK, in that message Jyrki Soini wrote in the last sentence (which I'm guessing is the relevant one, right?) "The issue is not just [a] 3G network peculiarity but it might also make life simpler on xDSL/metro-Ethernet network implementations where [the] VLAN per customer model is used." So call me a moron, but what do VLANs have to do w/IPv6 prefixes? ... --------------010506000701080203040206 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------010506000701080203040206-- From madi@cnnic.cn Mon Apr 25 22:59:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C497AE06E6 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:59:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.267 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pKNIIdpVImin for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 36AE9E06FF for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (eyou send program); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:59:27 +0800 Message-ID: <503797567.13958@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: madi@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO ibm-think) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:59:27 +0800 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:59:08 +0800 From: "madi" To: "Ted Lemon" Message-ID: <201104261359083753336@cnnic.cn> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 15, 201, 23 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon651363545272_=====" Cc: dhcwg Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:59:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====003_Dragon651363545272_===== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgVGVkLA0KIA0KSSBhbSBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGFuZCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IHNo b3VsZCBiZSBhZG9wdGVkLg0KVGhpcyBkcmFmdCBwcmVzZW50cyBhIGdvb2Qgd2F5IHBvc2luZyBj ZW50cmFsaXplZCBjb250cm9sIG9uIElQdjYgYWRkcmVzcyB3aG9zZSBpbnRlcmZhY2UgaWRlbnRp ZmllciBwYXJ0IGlzIGRlY2lkZWQgYnkgdGhlIGhvc3Qgc29tZWhvdy4gDQogDQogDQogDQoNCjIw MTEtMDQtMjYgDQoNCg0KDQogIA0KDQpEaSAgTWEgDQpDTk5JQyBMYWINCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KQ2hpbmEgSW50ZXJuZXQgTmV0 d29yayBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBDZW50ZXINClBob25lOiAgICAoODYxMCktNTg4MTMyMTYNCkVtYWls OiAgICBtYWRpQGNubmljLmNuDQpIb21lYWdlOiAgd3d3LmNubmljLmNuDQpBZGRyZXNzOiAgNCwg U291dGggNHRoIFN0cmVldCwgWmhvbmdndWFuY3VuDQogICAgICAgICAgSGFpZGlhbiBEaXN0cmlj dCwgQmVpamluZw0KICAgICAgICAgIFAuUi5DaGluYSAgMTAwMTkwDQpQT0I6IEJlaWppbmcgMzQ5 LCBCcmFuY2ggNg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fDQoNCg0KDQq3orz+yMujuiBUZWQgTGVtb24gDQq3osvNyrG85KO6IDIwMTEtMDQt MjUgIDEzOjMyOjEyIA0KytW8/sjLo7ogZGhjd2dAaWV0Zi5vcmcgV0cgDQqzrcvNo7ogDQrW98zi o7ogW2RoY3dnXSBDYWxsIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbjogZHJhZnQteGlhLWRoYy1ob3N0LWdlbi1pZC0w NCANCiANClRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGRpc2N1c3NlZCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGluIFByYWd1ZSBh bmQgdGhlcmUgd2FzIGludGVyZXN0IGluIHRha2luZyBvbiB0aGUgd29yay4gICBUaGUgZHJhZnQg aXMgYW4gYXR0ZW1wdCB0byBzb2x2ZSB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvZiBob3cgdG8gdXNlIENHQXMgYW5k IG90aGVyIGhvc3QtZ2VuZXJhdGVkIGFkZHJlc3NlcyB3aXRoIERIQ1AuICAgSWYgeW91IGFyZSBp biBmYXZvciBvZiB0YWtpbmcgb24gdGhpcyB3b3JrLCBwbGVhc2UgbGV0IHVzIGtub3cuICAgSWYg eW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgd29yayB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBzaG91bGQgbm90IGRvLCBw bGVhc2UgbGV0IHVzIGtub3cuICAgSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBkb2Vzbid0IGFkZXF1 YXRlbHkgYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBhdCBwcmVzZW50LCBwbGVhc2UgZ2V0IGludm9sdmVk Lg0KSSB3aWxsIGV2YWx1YXRlIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBvbiBhZG9wdGlu ZyB0aGlzIHdvcmsgb24gRnJpZGF5LCBNYXkgNi4NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpkaGN3ZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCmRoY3dnQGlldGYub3Jn DQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2RoY3dnDQo= --=====003_Dragon651363545272_===== Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWdi MjMxMiIgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGU+DQo8TUVUQSBuYW1lPUdFTkVSQVRPUiBjb250 ZW50PSJNU0hUTUwgOC4wMC43NjAwLjE2NDY2Ij4NCjxTVFlMRT5AZm9udC1mYWNlIHsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTogy87M5TsNCn0NCkBmb250LWZhY2Ugew0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBWZXJkYW5hOw0K fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZSB7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IEDLzszlOw0KfQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjEg e3NpemU6IDU5NS4zcHQgODQxLjlwdDsgbWFyZ2luOiA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA5MC4w cHQ7IGxheW91dC1ncmlkOiAxNS42cHQ7IH0NClAuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6 IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlmeTsgTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwLjVwdA0KfQ0K TEkuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgVEVYVC1BTElH TjoganVzdGlmeTsgTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICJUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4iOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwLjVwdA0KfQ0KRElWLk1zb05vcm1hbCB7DQoJVEVYVC1KVVNU SUZZOiBpbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGg7IFRFWFQtQUxJR046IGp1c3RpZnk7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIjsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMC41cHQN Cn0NCkE6bGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9 DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5k ZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpBOnZpc2l0ZWQgew0KCUNPTE9SOiBwdXJwbGU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjog dW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkIHsNCglDT0xPUjogcHVycGxl OyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IHVuZGVybGluZQ0KfQ0KU1BBTi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcgew0KCUZP TlQtU1RZTEU6IG5vcm1hbDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6IFZlcmRhbmE7IENPTE9SOiB3aW5kb3d0ZXh0 OyBGT05ULVdFSUdIVDogbm9ybWFsOyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IG5vbmU7IG1zby1zdHlsZS10 eXBlOiBwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlDQp9DQpESVYuU2VjdGlvbjEgew0KCXBhZ2U6IFNlY3Rpb24x DQp9DQpVTktOT1dOIHsNCglGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQNCn0NCkJMT0NLUVVPVEUgew0KCU1BUkdJ Ti1UT1A6IDBweDsgTUFSR0lOLUJPVFRPTTogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMmVtDQp9DQpPTCB7 DQoJTUFSR0lOLVRPUDogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tQk9UVE9NOiAwcHgNCn0NClVMIHsNCglNQVJHSU4t VE9QOiAwcHg7IE1BUkdJTi1CT1RUT006IDBweA0KfQ0KPC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVBRD4NCjxCT0RZ IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDEwcHg7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiB2ZXJkYW5hOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEw cHQiPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmE+PFNQQU4g c3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTJwdCIgDQpsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwMDA+ PFNQQU4gc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTJwdCIgbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxlPSJG T05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQiIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+DQo8UCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dDsgbXNvLW91dGxpbmUtbGV2ZWw6IDEiIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxlPSJG T05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQiIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+SGkgVGVkLDw/eG1sOm5hbWVzcGFjZSBwcmVmaXgg PSBvIG5zID0gDQoidXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiAvPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0OyBtc28t b3V0bGluZS1sZXZlbDogMSIgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxTUEFOIA0Kc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0la RTogMTJwdCIgbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBzdHls ZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdDsgbXNvLW91dGxpbmUtbGV2ZWw6IDEiIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQiIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+SSBhbSBpbiBm YXZvciBvZiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGFuZCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IA0Kc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFkb3B0ZWQuPG86 cD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQ7IG1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiDLzszlOyBtc28tYmlkaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogJ1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7 IG1zby1mb250LWtlcm5pbmc6IDBwdCIgDQpsYW5nPUVOLVVTPlRoaXMgZHJhZnQgcHJlc2VudHMg YSBnb29kIHdheSBwb3NpbmcgY2VudHJhbGl6ZWQgY29udHJvbCBvbiBJUHY2IA0KYWRkcmVzcyB3 aG9zZSBpbnRlcmZhY2UgaWRlbnRpZmllciBwYXJ0IGlzIGRlY2lkZWQgYnkgdGhlIGhvc3Qgc29t ZWhvdy4gDQo8L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTJwdCIgbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCIgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxTUEFOIA0KbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48 L1A+DQo8UCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdDsgbXNvLW91dGxpbmUtbGV2ZWw6IDEi IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAw cHQ7IG1zby1vdXRsaW5lLWxldmVsOiAxIiBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQ IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0IiBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PFNQQU4gDQpsYW5n PUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0OyBtc28tb3V0bGluZS1sZXZlbDogMSIgDQpjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PC9GT05U PjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCIgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwMDA+Jm5ic3A7PC9G T05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTIgZmFj ZT1WZXJkYW5hPjwvRk9OVD4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9I2MwYzBjMCBz aXplPTIgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hPjxGT05UIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDAwMD4yMDExLTA0LTI2PC9GT05U PiA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTIgDQpmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmE+ DQo8SFIgc3R5bGU9IldJRFRIOiAxMDBweCIgYWxpZ249bGVmdCBjb2xvcj0jYjVjNGRmIFNJWkU9 MT4NCjwvRk9OVD4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9I2MwYzBjMCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5h PjxTUEFOPg0KPERJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJDb3Vy aWVyIE5ldyI+Jm5ic3A7IDwvRk9OVD4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciPjxG T05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmY+PEJSPkRpJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7TWE8L0ZPTlQ+IA0KPC9GT05UPg0K PFA+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgZmFjZT0iQ291 cmllciBOZXciPkNOTklDIA0KTGFiPEJSPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzwvRk9OVD48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PEZPTlQg Y29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZiBmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI+Q2hpbmEgSW50ZXJuZXQgTmV0d29yayAN CkluZm9ybWF0aW9uIA0KQ2VudGVyPEJSPlBob25lOiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyg4 NjEwKS01ODgxMzIxNjxCUj5FbWFpbDombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PEEg DQpocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86bWFkaUBjbm5pYy5jbiI+PEZPTlQgDQpmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI+ bWFkaUBjbm5pYy5jbjwvRk9OVD48L0E+PEJSPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgDQpmYWNlPSJD b3VyaWVyIE5ldyI+SG9tZWFnZTombmJzcDsgPC9GT05UPjxBIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY25u aWMuY24vIj48Rk9OVCANCmZhY2U9IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ij53d3cuY25uaWMuY248L0ZPTlQ+PC9B PjxCUj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMGZmIA0KZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciPkFkZHJlc3M6Jm5i c3A7IDQsIFNvdXRoIDR0aCBTdHJlZXQsIA0KWmhvbmdndWFuY3VuPEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO0hhaWRpYW4gDQpE aXN0cmljdCwgDQpCZWlqaW5nPEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO1AuUi5DaGluYSZuYnNwOyANCjEwMDE5MDwvRk9OVD48 L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZj48U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0i Rk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6IEFyaWFsIj48Rk9OVCANCnNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI+UE9C OiBCZWlqaW5nIDM0OSwgQnJhbmNoIDY8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48QlI+PEZPTlQgDQpmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzwvRk9OVD48L1A+PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPjwv RElWPjwvRElWPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8SFIgY29sb3I9I2I1YzRkZiBTSVpFPTE+ DQoNCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT48U1RST05HPreivP7Iy6O6PC9TVFJP Tkc+IFRlZCBMZW1vbiA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPVZlcmRh bmE+PFNUUk9ORz63osvNyrG85KO6PC9TVFJPTkc+IDIwMTEtMDQtMjUmbmJzcDsgMTM6MzI6MTIg DQo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmE+PFNUUk9ORz7K 1bz+yMujujwvU1RST05HPiBkaGN3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZyBXRyANCjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT48U1RST05HPrOty82jujwvU1RST05HPiA8L0ZPTlQ+ PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmE+PFNUUk9ORz7W98zio7o8L1NU Uk9ORz4gW2RoY3dnXSBDYWxsIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbjogDQpkcmFmdC14aWEtZGhjLWhvc3QtZ2Vu LWlkLTA0IDwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT48L0ZP TlQ+IDwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hPg0KPERJVj5UaGUmbmJz cDt3b3JraW5nJm5ic3A7Z3JvdXAmbmJzcDtkaXNjdXNzZWQmbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7ZHJhZnQm bmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO1ByYWd1ZSZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO3RoZXJlJm5ic3A7d2FzJm5ic3A7aW50 ZXJlc3QmbmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO3Rha2luZyZuYnNwO29uJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7d29yay4mbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDtUaGUmbmJzcDtkcmFmdCZuYnNwO2lzJm5ic3A7YW4mbmJzcDthdHRlbXB0 Jm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtzb2x2ZSZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO3Byb2JsZW0mbmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO2hv dyZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7dXNlJm5ic3A7Q0dBcyZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO290aGVyJm5ic3A7aG9z dC1nZW5lcmF0ZWQmbmJzcDthZGRyZXNzZXMmbmJzcDt3aXRoJm5ic3A7REhDUC4mbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDtJZiZuYnNwO3lvdSZuYnNwO2FyZSZuYnNwO2luJm5ic3A7ZmF2b3ImbmJzcDtvZiZu YnNwO3Rha2luZyZuYnNwO29uJm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO3dvcmssJm5ic3A7cGxlYXNlJm5ic3A7 bGV0Jm5ic3A7dXMmbmJzcDtrbm93LiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO0lmJm5ic3A7eW91Jm5ic3A7 dGhpbmsmbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7aXMmbmJzcDt3b3JrJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7d29ya2luZyZu YnNwO2dyb3VwJm5ic3A7c2hvdWxkJm5ic3A7bm90Jm5ic3A7ZG8sJm5ic3A7cGxlYXNlJm5ic3A7 bGV0Jm5ic3A7dXMmbmJzcDtrbm93LiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO0lmJm5ic3A7eW91Jm5ic3A7 dGhpbmsmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtkcmFmdCZuYnNwO2RvZXNuJ3QmbmJzcDthZGVxdWF0ZWx5Jm5i c3A7YWRkcmVzcyZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO3Byb2JsZW0mbmJzcDthdCZuYnNwO3ByZXNlbnQsJm5i c3A7cGxlYXNlJm5ic3A7Z2V0Jm5ic3A7aW52b2x2ZWQuPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjwvRElWPg0KPERJ Vj5JJm5ic3A7d2lsbCZuYnNwO2V2YWx1YXRlJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7d29ya2luZyZuYnNwO2dy b3VwJm5ic3A7Y29uc2Vuc3VzJm5ic3A7b24mbmJzcDthZG9wdGluZyZuYnNwO3RoaXMmbmJzcDt3 b3JrJm5ic3A7b24mbmJzcDtGcmlkYXksJm5ic3A7TWF5Jm5ic3A7Ni48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPmRoY3dnJm5ic3A7bWFpbGluZyZuYnNwO2xpc3Q8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ZGhj d2dAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0 aW5mby9kaGN3ZzwvRElWPjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj48L0JPRFk+PC9IVE1MPg0K --=====003_Dragon651363545272_=====-- From ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz Tue Apr 26 05:04:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FF2E072F for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:04:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QhcZbiAVgm0E for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (mailhub1.t-mobile.cz [62.141.0.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E278FE06EF for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srvhk503.rdm.cz (unknown [10.246.143.95]) by mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304F0285804; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:04:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SRVHKE02.rdm.cz ([fe80::94ce:8456:f6fa:86a8]) by srvhk503.rdm.cz ([fe80::a0bc:fdcc:adf9:5f66%12]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:04:45 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?V=EDzdal_Ale=B9?= To: Ted Lemon Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:04:44 +0200 Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 Thread-Index: Acv+xqH1X7QhBVT7Qh6507B49Xv3kQFQmFNA Message-ID: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC47FC4996F@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:04:50 -0000 +1 Thanks to the authors, I am in favour of this draft. (To solve the 3GPP way of Prefix Delegation) Cheers, Ales > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Ted > Lemon > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:19 PM > To: dhcwg@ietf.org WG > Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 >=20 > We had a last call on this prior to the Prague meeting, and there was wor= k done off > list, but no responses on-list. If you support this work, please indica= te that you > support it. If you oppose the work, please provide suggestions, comment= s, or reasons > why it's entirely a bad idea. >=20 > Assuming that we get some comments between now and next Friday, we will d= etermine > consensus next Friday (May 29). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 08:15:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D1BE0757 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:15:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.138, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-ZL5isl8AfL for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 60679E0681 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.69] by nm15.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 15:15:06 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.26] by tm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 15:15:06 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1026.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 15:15:06 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 315531.85274.bm@omp1026.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84289 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Apr 2011 15:15:05 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1303830905; bh=uawj75VI11zI6qoSqpG3jclpDCdJaBcjLuo5fXuFJzw=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UHQxGBol6xK0h8QxmAhkP51lHd5bQoYRd8NZldiFSD/FUVpyBngayMTT6jAMoWYqoQl510o0nYrzVCN0PKGfbe22W24ZFLS5zo6o7PwDVUaPL3OWqs1G2ImUOMOQRuAd2pCBUvJ342lJcV7xj2/q2HAlWKnWB2eTP8tw6iv5ajE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=4Yz5cF1RLvkEuej6lazkL4ML/jsDO4pY6RGCre4ekjOXyzHRnDOPM3yaBGBCxySr2l+CCxckaPY29/3oUjk/6BF5Koai5VB4b+E6m22PLm5s7LZSKGb46uOoqQ8WDLcdcl8vGWjMMMg83dftkV9gpXzyINVHyte9jQTyMwoHzWY=; Message-ID: <866464.61829.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: _sBvhLEVM1nQG3XYH.y808B5wyyrct_icAqIBg.bMv2uSfl kU.9K2F9W0HcLVQmNknK0_6sSisdU.LTOlXb3KICcbjWUf5kkH5Otxr7JYi8 DTf2sr.Fyh.T07h7wGWFhbVxwfZsERknluHaEw3F2Ws7_mwYilOUpLkQu_fl EF3u3Q8ZOvBSZ68UPyIyZNlBn.IrgP4jXGSObGhlwGNfOuEXo0sFHxX_urUR _9h.wzRB3QZtsEtxMCX.lgbGvX29HzqOX01xuKvoQpv8xkvHp3SpiSmm3eDJ XtuMKGuLbBjtIAuGTZraffP0h1uFTgLcYcF.Iimw4U5nHfsfdoeFqQcdJGAF KevIIlGyKmzKDazH9XhtmCTWSa.xrbyexmNEsQEnqNaiH9ZtAoDW8MC8eNpA ZsfXMd2KVwFe.4Q-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:15:05 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900 References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.orgWG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:15:07 -0000 Hi Jouni, Can you please explain to me why we need PD Exclude option in 3GPP while 3GPP was not using stateful address configuration but instead using SLAAC? Also if ever recommended using what type of architecture? As you know DHCP PD could be used in many different ways. Don't get me wrong, I am not against this draft, I saw mention of it in 23.401, congrats on the hard work. Regards, Behcet > > See for example >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11100.html > > - jouni > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > > > On 4/26/2011 9:15 AM, GangChen wrote: > >> I support this work. 3GPP network could benefit from new defined PD option. > >> > >> Gang > >> 2011/4/26, Jiangsheng : > >>> Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P > > > > Just out of curiosity, is this option known or believed to be useful to > > anyone _except_ 3GPP? > > > > ... > > _______________________________________________ > > dhcwg mailing list > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Tue Apr 26 08:38:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40041E0681 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNYkGP0ZQGNj for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D206E07A4 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p3QFcENk018118; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:38:16 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.107] (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:38:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4DB6E67B.3070100@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:36:27 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> <4DB65809.9080204@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB65809.9080204@net-zen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:38:19 -0000 Hi Glen, On 11-04-26 01:28 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 4/26/2011 11:57 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > >> See for example http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11100.html > > OK, in that message Jyrki Soini wrote in the last sentence (which I'm > guessing is the relevant one, right?) "The issue is not just [a] 3G > network peculiarity but it might also make life simpler on > xDSL/metro-Ethernet network implementations where [the] VLAN per > customer model is used." > > So call me a moron, but what do VLANs have to do w/IPv6 prefixes? The BBF has two different VLAN deployment models. The one where each subscriber line is connectev into the Edge Router using a different vlan tag is called the 1:1 VLAN (or the VLAN per customer) model. Each of these customer circuits is associated with two prefixes now. A /64 for performing SLAAC towards the subscriber and a shorter prefix (say /56) for delegating to the LAN(s) inside the subscriber's home. Due to limitations in RFC3633, these two prefixes are not aggregatable. Using the DHCP PD exclude option, these two prefixes can be aggregated. Thanks Suresh From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 12:27:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0D8E07DE for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:27:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.84 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.759, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tiQhtZ84vNGt for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A7DD7E07CB for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm26.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 19:27:38 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.11] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 19:27:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 19:27:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 870680.58551.bm@omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 42081 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Apr 2011 19:27:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1303846057; bh=HMrizOHik/2NEeZNgtR78WXMMBlsI/RqXRj7o3nszZ4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZK1M3IcbXDyy+ugI6Y0WX5a30JMosQLlw2oCCTk67cPpng4tNSlKd3kcoaaTtRZ81oTaUPhJQ5oWCOWthVBocDrgxI4TQIu23yF4JC6UeRp7Mlen19Yjbjhh4zeek+xPOUkOBfHvnO1ebIK5xLwcR5LJ0/QxIZxb/77u4z1T8ok= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=2eSJNrUVTYnkBrPsflkn7cfg1RaaGZ27nsPgVrOnTFoZ1FjSEsiPPjEON68Xpj2NLtr4+7pu771cABRNd+5CAoehtP3tc3eY4DoTSu2S+iL2jjothrGYPl4JxzqXT0UwVjUtozEMk78NHOUxUjG1U+g8ATKs9HR7+C+WZtZBsns=; Message-ID: <605351.42061.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 5MG0wBIVM1kgt.qIv4nvUefzGHdts.3k2MFntef0FDEJtaW 0_MpvwLKJMvOtPMRdCBKw5iDfYsxJ3kxqnt95SJWe9AfRbrVbijeIX4sIf50 4Xn1NYbWwSJwnvIFPhBQfaUGXpoLJuXYbhFdWOpe.UI6ohRcKCwk3WOqyAiN kxmf12iYX7o3rZgoOCqHm6bQ9pkQ_fcDyFOONyIAUgxKiCqVTfhvmOBhZAW2 DT4J8OjxYJjOqFjF1ne2DwkSp4Cx7Fm8z4IDUYO7GYIAU.ULTreu.tXvyCgg Ea8FV5A69B9liS.dDP_LUHzSStwTcKJlPDSq3qRhHqCDwkbEbkmXGCkRUoX2 AyGhV1vg34hgu_3mDExk1olXn4cAY.VHFLVDYrOh9zgf5qyfo0Fy.ecx2LM6 Om.UfHc_xF40f1o3S Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:27:37 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900 References: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:27:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: GangChen , Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.orgWG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:27:41 -0000 +1 (supporting as a co- author:-)) BR Behcet > > I support this draft going forward. It is applicable to point-to-point > link model. > > Gang > > 2011/4/25, Ted Lemon : > > The working group discussed this draft in Prague and there was interest in > > taking on the work. The draft is an attempt to solve the problem of how >to > > use CGAs and other host-generated addresses with DHCP. If you are in favor > > of taking on this work, please let us know. If you think this is work the > > working group should not do, please let us know. If you think the draft > > doesn't adequately address the problem at present, please get involved. > > > > I will evaluate the working group consensus on adopting this work on Friday, > > May 6. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dhcwg mailing list > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 13:02:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2F8E07E3 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbmPWpAs0vMR for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi (vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B47E07C5 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saunalahti-vams (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 6163914005C; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:02:37 +0300 (EEST) Received: from vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi ([195.197.172.105]) with SMTP (gateway) id A03FCB5FB2A; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:02:37 +0300 Received: from gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.116]) by vs10.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5945714005C; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:02:37 +0300 (EEST) Received: from a83-245-215-74.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a83-245-215-74.elisa-laajakaista.fi [83.245.215.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249331399EB; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:02:32 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jouni In-Reply-To: <866464.61829.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:02:32 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14EC6D17-301F-4CA2-8800-526DEB3AE0A5@gmail.com> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> <866464.61829.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Antivirus: VAMS Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.orgWG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:02:40 -0000 Bechet, On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Jouni, > Can you please explain to me why we need PD Exclude option in 3GPP = while 3GPP=20 > was not using stateful address configuration but instead using SLAAC?=20= Prefix delegation does not need to be coupled with the DHCP-based = address allocation. The real cause for all of this was the desire to a) = have an efficient use of prefixes and b) be able to aggregate the = delegated prefix and the /64 assigned to mobile device's uplink in a = nice way (i.e. the /64 is part of the shorter delegated prefix mainly = for policy control purposes). > Also if ever recommended using what type of architecture? As you know = DHCP PD=20 > could be used in many different ways. BBF has a similar 1:1 VLAN deployment model option, where this could be = used. The presentation from Maastricht = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/dhc-3.pdf summarizes nicely = different PD deployment models. - Jouni >=20 > Don't get me wrong, I am not against this draft, I saw mention of it = in 23.401,=20 > congrats on the hard work. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet >=20 >>=20 >> See for example =20 >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11100.html >>=20 >> - jouni >>=20 >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: >>=20 >>> On 4/26/2011 9:15 AM, GangChen wrote: >>>> I support this work. 3GPP network could benefit from new defined = PD=20 > option. >>>>=20 >>>> Gang >>>> 2011/4/26, Jiangsheng : >>>>> Feeling this work is useful. Support it from non-authorship. :P >>>=20 >>> Just out of curiosity, is this option known or believed to be useful = to >>> anyone _except_ 3GPP? >>>=20 >>> ... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dhcwg mailing list >>> dhcwg@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> dhcwg mailing list >> dhcwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >>=20 From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Tue Apr 26 15:10:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804AEE07C5 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tiWh2+voogGz for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm6-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm6-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A5832E07B6 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 22:10:52 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.6] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 22:10:52 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Apr 2011 22:10:52 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 615041.34790.bm@omp1006.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 30297 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Apr 2011 22:10:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1303855852; bh=U5rf+jqXITxtZrStwRvlFV4uT4xh6CgXcbRwT6WcNEc=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=zCB2CZqojonHw4YR3q/EoRjXoC06jX4fiExlIIAAaKoVXRtWx4PeNLn2rY+fzlCH9Y5t5Kf+F8opjqaieeB9n0Wd3CbFlhqOFX0ivrTu3RWLpZWxuthlpg5PivBCtxuqJ6V1lXOhWAuyKTeZ4hiQ0E6+EIsuduaByR8bJdSRDl8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k5KfF4R/cOmF3//YWYNk0b6QcpfYHAKiHhV8l/et7u6gJoAUmCtKaJX+8vmJSmQb+vdsBs7ediK5tA5+L0n/JXDq7lWVX7Jx5svtnsb63LcgAsSvl0oFKZTNvzzQ7bXSOFDkcCHWf3WQ+z8yl6Q7TUPaKuI/5zR6wjFHYtHF/CY=; Message-ID: <319313.29552.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: inzVCKgVM1n92ke1QuP.238FQocKF5qfke9qaPQrzmolP9B H7X3d0f8hX9pKu9jBiK6hvJ54oMi34za8oBXuQIqKJ7LgtMaJoERDB_EGGl2 YrU6pBeVQH_9mBbWEGerZQcLkqbOKuQE02tt9kTxoz3DWIUSr7Q.uPerQCno EwkPHezFov9.O5cdOyVFAnZXfCABXDhJr1a5jR5PTZgaqqqA3WWQemzl20W5 CwqpoWeGcKFDr.yHUcFWbJ5jD0XrukjZdPkYQu3dcheU6jkYoCPQl0_2OGNP 2yqQpL8TM397f9IsgGuV2Xm0YOKaVNjd.COmWz9EtXnKGAGXayLXPnutc7EK QNW.6ngaXFVmQ40zXJriqiSp.6Kgc1j8ISsJduDknTN7P9wHbMrbjONmV1lW uk5Imego.znly3g-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:52 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900 References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> <866464.61829.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <14EC6D17-301F-4CA2-8800-526DEB3AE0A5@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Jouni In-Reply-To: <14EC6D17-301F-4CA2-8800-526DEB3AE0A5@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.orgWG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:10:53 -0000 > > Bechet, > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > Hi Jouni, > > Can you please explain to me why we need PD Exclude option in 3GPP while >3GPP > > > was not using stateful address configuration but instead using SLAAC? > > Prefix delegation does not need to be coupled with the DHCP-based address >allocation. The real cause for all of this was the desire to a) have an >efficient use of prefixes and b) be able to aggregate the delegated prefix and >the /64 assigned to mobile device's uplink in a nice way (i.e. the /64 is part >of the shorter delegated prefix mainly for policy control purposes). > > > Also if ever recommended using what type of architecture? As you know DHCP >PD > > > could be used in many different ways. > > BBF has a similar 1:1 VLAN deployment model option, where this could be used. >The >presentation from Maastricht >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/dhc-3.pdf > > summarizes nicely different PD deployment models. But the situation in BBF is different. BBF has well defined DHCP PD scenarios in various BBF documents like TR-177, TR-187, WT-146, etc. I don't see the same situation in 3GPP as of now. Let's hope that it changes and then this documents becomes applicable in 3GPP. Regards, Behcet From mellon@fugue.com Wed Apr 27 04:45:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4ABE071B for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:45:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4aRxAatSvnnv for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4642CE06E5 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.17] (173-162-214-218-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.162.214.218]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E55E234E44D8 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1216) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6225F519-A1F8-4086-82A3-632E24ED49DF" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Resent-From: Ted Lemon Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:45:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:45:13 -0400 Resent-To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Message-Id: <20110427074501.17458.50532.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1216) Resent-Message-Id: <20110427114547.E55E234E44D8@toccata.fugue.com> Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-04.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:45:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6225F519-A1F8-4086-82A3-632E24ED49DF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. Title : DHCP and DHCPv6 Options for the Port Control = Protocol (PCP) Author(s) : M. Boucadair, et al. Filename : draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-04.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2011-04-27 This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6) options to configure hosts with Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server addresses. The use of IPv4 DHCP or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bpw-pcp-dhcp-04.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. --Apple-Mail=_6225F519-A1F8-4086-82A3-632E24ED49DF Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Mail Attachment" Content-Type: message/external-body; name="Mail Attachment" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-04-27003805.I-D@ietf.org>

--Apple-Mail=_6225F519-A1F8-4086-82A3-632E24ED49DF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --Apple-Mail=_6225F519-A1F8-4086-82A3-632E24ED49DF-- From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:07:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610CEE06A7 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2NWCrkv01P6 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E23E069A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so1385518wyb.31 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=hgqfinsNZOLOkP14ac1ceEUUbKseFfcWyunf6fFk39k=; b=jO2ZCT+aZZdBlQkUXzdOr2/PAxF1f3GQhfRgy/gI9/TTt3tDhXNqSmVWAanVnyO50z OlkxswSTlmvrWcdbz4vydI+zS0+hn3c5B4yakmEG2KYXut6XAcbSKLqXGWVvoyslh8KT STTx3wzHiF3SNyFHBnzapixyJveGhVzAVMSvk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=UgGSNElX6xErJi6pWH+9TWh2hh5afTLYN6l275pJGZ8ewHvRriPuQYe4VK0LNPCYOu /TiGnpEPAG4WVVLx9kfZAPHzJeZEHR15rBJkoucCftD/tuiICpawXy0feqcHMbqI+y+Y U68yK5EowQrGKMWQrQIUKbBzDoxQ3D8xN3E5M= Received: by 10.216.237.73 with SMTP id x51mr658078weq.16.1303906024305; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-242.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-242.cisco.com [64.103.53.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bs4sm417643wbb.35.2011.04.27.05.07.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <319313.29552.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:07:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3E298A06-65F2-4D89-9227-836D71762C45@employees.org> References: <94200415-3C9D-4C61-88AB-42A6D0E11649@nominum.com> <39343BD4-897D-42EB-974E-8218076718F2@employees.org> <8A050802-DCF5-4DA1-9E50-88B044734BAD@nominum.com> <4DB59A8A.1010004@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9283073A@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4DB62DD5.4060107@net-zen.net> <866464.61829.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <14EC6D17-301F-4CA2-8800-526DEB3AE0A5@gmail.com> <319313.29552.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.orgWG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:07:09 -0000 Bechet, >>> Can you please explain to me why we need PD Exclude option in 3GPP = while=20 >> 3GPP=20 >>=20 >>> was not using stateful address configuration but instead using = SLAAC?=20 >>=20 >> Prefix delegation does not need to be coupled with the DHCP-based = address=20 >> allocation. The real cause for all of this was the desire to a) have = an=20 >> efficient use of prefixes and b) be able to aggregate the delegated = prefix and=20 >> the /64 assigned to mobile device's uplink in a nice way (i.e. the = /64 is part=20 >> of the shorter delegated prefix mainly for policy control purposes). >>=20 >>> Also if ever recommended using what type of architecture? As you = know DHCP=20 >> PD=20 >>=20 >>> could be used in many different ways. >>=20 >> BBF has a similar 1:1 VLAN deployment model option, where this could = be used.=20 >> The >presentation from Maastricht =20 >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/dhc-3.pdf=20 >>=20 >> summarizes nicely different PD deployment models. >=20 > But the situation in BBF is different. BBF has well defined DHCP PD = scenarios in=20 > various BBF documents like TR-177, TR-187, WT-146, etc. I don't see = the same=20 > situation in 3GPP as of now.=20 what makes you say that? this document clearly indicates that RFC3633 based prefix delegation is = part of Release-10: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-00#section-5.3 cheers, Ole From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Apr 27 06:15:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8995E073E for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:15:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iAoyc4B8xNbh for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa06-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ADCA5E0732 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7346 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 13:15:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.70.183) by p3plsmtpa06-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.108) with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 13:15:20 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB816E5.20102@net-zen.net> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:15:17 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070300050703060106080200" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:15:25 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070300050703060106080200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I support the adoption of this draft and would offer to work on it (for some as-yet unspecified value of 'work' ;-). > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:32 PM > To: dhcwg@ietf.org WG > Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 > > The working group discussed this draft in Prague and there was interest in taking on the work. The draft is an attempt to solve the problem of how to use CGAs and other host-generated addresses with DHCP. If you are in favor of taking on this work, please let us know. If you think this is work the working group should not do, please let us know. If you think the draft doesn't adequately address the problem at present, please get involved. > > I will evaluate the working group consensus on adopting this work on Friday, May 6. > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > --------------070300050703060106080200 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070300050703060106080200-- From xiayangsong@huawei.com Wed Apr 27 17:24:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4180BE08E1 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E73I2ISF1XOU for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11F2E0691 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKC006FX6GZ1R@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.9.108]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LKC00EE96GZO6@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:36 -0700 Received: from DFWEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.75]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:24:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:24:34 +0000 From: xiayangsong In-reply-to: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.116] To: Ted Lemon , "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 Thread-index: AQHMAwos/TG/MwlHkUClHb0P4+rg4ZRybwyw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <4A352640-DF7D-47F9-9D66-5AA41ACECBF6@nominum.com> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:24:37 -0000 +1 as a co-author. BR Frank -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:32 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org WG Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-04 The working group discussed this draft in Prague and there was interest in taking on the work. The draft is an attempt to solve the problem of how to use CGAs and other host-generated addresses with DHCP. If you are in favor of taking on this work, please let us know. If you think this is work the working group should not do, please let us know. If you think the draft doesn't adequately address the problem at present, please get involved. I will evaluate the working group consensus on adopting this work on Friday, May 6. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From mellon@fugue.com Fri Apr 29 11:24:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366A3E06F1 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2uhoLC+GpziJ for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2581BE0675 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:55c:ada2:d6d9:224:36ff:feec:37f] (unknown [IPv6:2001:55c:ada2:d6d9:224:36ff:feec:37f]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484B234E42AD for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:24:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:24:16 -0400 Message-Id: <2A6D79FD-346C-4282-88E0-51AC68CC586C@fugue.com> To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [dhcwg] Minutes from IETF 80 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:24:23 -0000 I've uploaded Shane's excellent minutes from the meeting in Prague. If = you participated, please review the minutes to see if anything's missing = or inaccurate. The cutoff for changes is two weeks from today. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/dhc.txt Thanks!