From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jan 1 13:01:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10B81AD845; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 13:01:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p1_StHYwEp2G; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 13:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B2A1AD73E; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 13:01:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140101210116.22801.19901.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:01:16 -0800 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:01:18 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Issues with multiple stateful DHCPv6 options Authors : Ole Troan Bernie Volz Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2014-01-01 Abstract: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) was not written with the expectation that additional stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed. IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6 shoe-horned the new options for Prefix Delegation into DHCPv6. Implementation experience of the CPE model described in RFC6204 has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in supporting multiple stateful options. This document updates RFC3315 and indirectly RFC3633. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From volz@cisco.com Thu Jan 2 10:27:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353C51A16F0 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:27:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6FTcdol4v589 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037A41A1F65 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:27:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2657; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1388687237; x=1389896837; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MWGCcrK+kLIfBk2cr3egOYQnNGbuUmWbeecSlEl79jg=; b=lai2BnF7YS1BTZsxSFYRwETfNFnmdmewy67CnhHP6qcGYHCQTmN+d59+ /UfZvDPZboG5euKk5KtUknFgZBsC5ev/30m/QWlqjqTzVWz6/kn1hFngx nq2yNc7ufrS8GYBFc/x+d1Y7IiO1KFLcBsCy43MOiq9FW1fpg4p0TxxuK k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkwFAI+uxVKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABYgws4Twa4b4ELFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE3NBcEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEEwgBh3sIBcMMF45sOAaDHYETBJlHkGSDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,592,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="10161457" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2014 18:27:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s02IRGSM008783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 18:27:16 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.230]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:27:16 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHPBzSfDl70wyMLPEKmrqGUR4lyxppxwBow Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 18:27:13 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE040BA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <20140101210116.22801.19901.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140101210116.22801.19901.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.255.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:27:26 -0000 Hi: The major changes for this update are the Renew/Rebind message processing c= hanges were split into separate sections and the Rebind text in RFC 3315 se= ction 18.2.4 is replaced with new text (as previously proposed). Please review the draft and submit comments on the changes or document in g= eneral. I will ask Tomek to start a WGLC for the document in a week or two, but fix= ing any issues before then would be best. Those who had raised issues with= the previous last call (in early 2013) may want to assure that their issue= s are addressed (I could easily have missed some). - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ie= tf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 4:01 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Issues with multiple stateful DHCPv6 options Authors : Ole Troan Bernie Volz Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2014-01-01 Abstract: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) was not written with the expectation that additional stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed. IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6 shoe-horned the new options for Prefix Delegation into DHCPv6. Implementation experience of the CPE model described in RFC6204 has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in supporting multiple stateful options. This document updates RFC3315 and indirectly RFC3633. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 7 11:43:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADED11AE16D; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbUUQ04ItUt9; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:43:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EB01AE139; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:43:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140107194305.932.6178.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:43:05 -0800 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:43:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options Authors : David W. Hankins Tomek Mrugalski Marcin Siodelski Sheng Jiang Suresh Krishnan Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2014-01-07 Abstract: This document provides guidance to prospective DHCPv6 Option developers to help them creating option formats that are easily adoptable by existing DHCPv6 software. It also provides guidelines for expert reviewers to evaluate new registrations. This document updates RFC3315. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-17 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From volz@cisco.com Wed Jan 8 19:09:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5A11AE051 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:09:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MR7zOzEExvBH for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2E51AE035 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:09:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389236960; x=1390446560; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version; bh=LrmA9UrJjiLfHKWku1uijW1mV5kzJEPCj1xsfEP4mTk=; b=QGS1p17ApuLirwWVZIbrP6XENKM0KMylkiGpnfqM84dXxVs27oA92PkK lv7JoHKYyEBGOoTtYDmEqZtNJaH765D8/973f49XFI7OEbudgIBP0l6OK +mEaG1HQGQ+kF1uqyc+aHxRL3LiNU+ASszbb6WV7FVP9ggraKNoeXW8FT E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AigIAAkSzlKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgws4g1StbYhVGHgWdIIlAQEBBCNUEgIBGQMBAh4KAwICAjAUCQgBAQQTCYd7DalxmlYXjiMRAT8NCgeCKUA1gRMEmBeBMJBlgy2BcQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,628,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="11530422" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2014 03:09:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0939ItM006810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 03:09:18 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:09:18 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Draft Notification - draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac8M6C645kTFUfcZSFCF+gvWTiCK6g== Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 03:09:17 +0000 Message-ID: <901BBBD6-F803-4E88-B5C3-DCE4A2AA8C8E@cisco.com> References: <20140109023726.19535.83055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_901BBBD6F8034E88B5C3DCE4A2AA8C8Eciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] New Draft Notification - draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 03:09:36 -0000 --_000_901BBBD6F8034E88B5C3DCE4A2AA8C8Eciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbCBkb2N1bWVudCwgYSBjb252ZXJzaW9uIG9mIFJGQyAzMzE1IHRv IHhtbCAoeG1sMnJmYykgZm9ybWF0LCB3aGljaCB0aGUgZGhjcHY2YmlzIHRlYW0gd2lsbCBzdGFy dCBlZGl0aW5nIHRvIG1lcmdlIGluIFJGQyAzNjMzLCBhcHBseSBlcnJhdGEsIG90aGVyIGlzc3Vl cyByZXBvcnRlZCBmb3IgUkZDIDMzMTUgYW5kIDM2MzMsIGFuZCBwZXJoYXBzIGEgZmV3IG90aGVy IFJGQ3MuIFdlIGhhdmUgYWxyZWFkeSBlbnRlcmVkIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGtub3duIGlzc3VlcyBp bnRvIG91ciBpc3N1ZXMgdHJhY2tlci4gRnJlZCBUZW1wbGluIGhhZCBkb25lIGEgdGhvcm91Z2gg cmV2aWV3IG9mIFJGQyAzMzE1IG1hbnkgeWVhcnMgYWdvIHdoaWNoIHVuY292ZXJlZCBqdXN0IHVu ZGVyIDMwIGlzc3VlcyAoc29tZSBtYXkgYmUgZHVwbGljYXRlcyBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgcmVwb3J0ZWQg Ynkgb3RoZXJzKS4gVGhhbmtzIEZyZWQhISBBbmQgc29ycnkgaXQgaGFzIHRha2VuIHNvIGxvbmcg dG8gc3RhcnQgdG8gbG9vayBhdCB0aGVtIQ0KDQpXZSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGlzIHZl cnNpb24gc28gdGhhdCBhbGwgY291bGQgc2VlIHRoYXQgd2Ugc3RhcnRlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBvcmln aW5hbCBSRkMgMzMxNSwgZXhjZXB0aW5nIG1pbm9yIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzIGluIGZvcm1hdHRpbmcg YW5kIGNvbXBseWluZyB3aXRoIHhtbDJyZmMgZm9ybWF0dGluZyAoaS5lLiwgcmVmZXJlbmNlcywg ZXRjLikuDQoNClRoYW5rcyB0byBUb21layBmb3IgZG9pbmcgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgY29udmVyc2lv biAodXNpbmcgbnJvZmYyeG1sKSwgYW5kIHRvIE1pY2hhZWwgUmljaGFyZHNvbiBmb3IgZG9pbmcg bXVjaCBvZiB0aGUgY2xlYW51cC4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIGZlZWwgZnJlZSB0byB1c2UgdGhlIGlldGYg dG9vbHMgZGlmZiB0b29sIHRvIGNvbXBhcmUgdGhpcyB3aXRoIFJGQyAzMzE1Lg0KDQpJZiBhbnlv bmUga25vd3Mgb2YgUkZDIDMzMTUgb3IgMzYzMyBpc3N1ZXMsIHBsZWFzZSBkbyBsZXQgdXMga25v dyBvZiB0aGVtICh5b3UgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgInVuZGVyIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24i IGlzc3VlcyBhdCBodHRwOi8vdHJhYy50b29scy5pZXRmL2dyb3VwL2RoY3B2NmJpcy9yZXBvcnQv MSkuIEVtYWlsIG1lIG9yIGRoY3B2NmJpc0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZGhjcHY2YmlzQGlldGYu b3JnPi4NCg0KLSBCZXJuaWUgKGZvciB0aGUgZGhjcHY2YmlzIHRlYW0pDQoNCkJlZ2luIGZvcndh cmRlZCBtZXNzYWdlOg0KDQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmlu dGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCkRhdGU6IEphbnVhcnkgOCwgMjAxNCBhdCA5OjM3OjI2 IFBNIEVTVA0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1kaGN3 Zy1kaGMtcmZjMzMxNWJpcy0wMC50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQt ZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0 dGVkIGJ5IEJlcm5pZSBWb2x6IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlDQpJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoN Ck5hbWU6ICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1kaGN3Zy1kaGMtcmZjMzMxNWJpcw0KUmV2aXNpb246ICAgIDAw DQpUaXRsZTogICAgICAgIER5bmFtaWMgSG9zdCBDb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIFByb3RvY29sIGZvciBJ UHY2IChESENQdjYpIGJpcw0KRG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZTogICAgMjAxNC0wMS0wNg0KR3JvdXA6ICAg ICAgICBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NClBhZ2VzOiAgICAgICAgMTAxDQpVUkw6ICAgICAg ICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhj LXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5p ZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMvDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAg aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAN Cg0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgVGhlIER5bmFtaWMgSG9zdCBDb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIFByb3RvY29s IGZvciBJUHY2IChESENQKSBlbmFibGVzIERIQ1ANCiAgc2VydmVycyB0byBwYXNzIGNvbmZpZ3Vy YXRpb24gcGFyYW1ldGVycyBzdWNoIGFzIElQdjYgbmV0d29yaw0KICBhZGRyZXNzZXMgdG8gSVB2 NiBub2Rlcy4gIEl0IG9mZmVycyB0aGUgY2FwYWJpbGl0eSBvZiBhdXRvbWF0aWMNCiAgYWxsb2Nh dGlvbiBvZiByZXVzYWJsZSBuZXR3b3JrIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhbmQgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBjb25maWd1 cmF0aW9uDQogIGZsZXhpYmlsaXR5LiAgVGhpcyBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyBhIHN0YXRlZnVsIGNvdW50 ZXJwYXJ0IHRvICJJUHY2DQogIFN0YXRlbGVzcyBBZGRyZXNzIEF1dG9jb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIiAo UkZDIDI0NjIpLCBhbmQgY2FuIGJlIHVzZWQNCiAgc2VwYXJhdGVseSBvciBjb25jdXJyZW50bHkg d2l0aCB0aGUgbGF0dGVyIHRvIG9idGFpbiBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uDQogIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMuDQoN Cg0KDQoNClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBm cm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCnVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFu ZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc8aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYu b3JnPi4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K --_000_901BBBD6F8034E88B5C3DCE4A2AA8C8Eciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <6A806557EEE3EB48BC317FDFA334410A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGRpcj0iYXV0byI+DQo8 ZGl2PlRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGEgY29udmVyc2lvbiBvZiBSRkMgMzMx NSB0byB4bWwgKHhtbDJyZmMpIGZvcm1hdCwgd2hpY2ggdGhlIGRoY3B2NmJpcyB0ZWFtIHdpbGwg c3RhcnQgZWRpdGluZyB0byBtZXJnZSBpbiBSRkMgMzYzMywgYXBwbHkgZXJyYXRhLCBvdGhlciBp c3N1ZXMgcmVwb3J0ZWQgZm9yIFJGQyAzMzE1IGFuZCAzNjMzLCBhbmQgcGVyaGFwcyBhIGZldyBv dGhlciBSRkNzLiBXZSBoYXZlIGFscmVhZHkgZW50ZXJlZA0KIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGtub3duIGlz c3VlcyBpbnRvIG91ciBpc3N1ZXMgdHJhY2tlci4gRnJlZCBUZW1wbGluIGhhZCBkb25lIGEgdGhv cm91Z2ggcmV2aWV3IG9mIFJGQyAzMzE1IG1hbnkgeWVhcnMgYWdvIHdoaWNoIHVuY292ZXJlZCBq dXN0IHVuZGVyIDMwIGlzc3VlcyAoc29tZSBtYXkgYmUgZHVwbGljYXRlcyBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgcmVw b3J0ZWQgYnkgb3RoZXJzKS4gVGhhbmtzIEZyZWQhISBBbmQgc29ycnkgaXQgaGFzIHRha2VuIHNv IGxvbmcgdG8NCiBzdGFydCB0byBsb29rIGF0IHRoZW0hPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj5XZSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGlzIHZlcnNpb24gc28gdGhhdCBhbGwgY291 bGQgc2VlIHRoYXQgd2Ugc3RhcnRlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBSRkMgMzMxNSwgZXhjZXB0 aW5nIG1pbm9yIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzIGluIGZvcm1hdHRpbmcgYW5kIGNvbXBseWluZyB3aXRoIHht bDJyZmMgZm9ybWF0dGluZyAoaS5lLiwgcmVmZXJlbmNlcywgZXRjLikuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxi cj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5UaGFua3MgdG8gVG9tZWsgZm9yIGRvaW5nIHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIGNv bnZlcnNpb24gKHVzaW5nIG5yb2ZmMnhtbCksIGFuZCB0byBNaWNoYWVsIFJpY2hhcmRzb24gZm9y IGRvaW5nIG11Y2ggb2YgdGhlIGNsZWFudXAuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj5QbGVhc2UgZmVlbCBmcmVlIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUgaWV0ZiB0b29scyBkaWZmIHRvb2wgdG8gY29t cGFyZSB0aGlzIHdpdGggUkZDIDMzMTUuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5J ZiBhbnlvbmUga25vd3Mgb2YgUkZDIDMzMTUgb3IgMzYzMyBpc3N1ZXMsIHBsZWFzZSBkbyBsZXQg dXMga25vdyBvZiB0aGVtICh5b3UgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgJnF1b3Q7dW5kZXIgY29u c2lkZXJhdGlvbiZxdW90OyBpc3N1ZXMgYXQNCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90cmFjLnRvb2xzLmll dGYvZ3JvdXAvZGhjcHY2YmlzL3JlcG9ydC8xIj5odHRwOi8vdHJhYy50b29scy5pZXRmL2dyb3Vw L2RoY3B2NmJpcy9yZXBvcnQvMTwvYT4pLiBFbWFpbCBtZSBvcg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmRo Y3B2NmJpc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+ZGhjcHY2YmlzQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPi48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQotIEJl cm5pZSAoZm9yIHRoZSBkaGNwdjZiaXMgdGVhbSk8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KQmVnaW4gZm9y d2FyZGVkIG1lc3NhZ2U6PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSB0eXBlPSJjaXRl Ij4NCjxkaXY+PGI+RnJvbTo8L2I+IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0 Zi5vcmciPmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT48YnI+DQo8Yj5EYXRlOjwvYj4gSmFu dWFyeSA4LCAyMDE0IGF0IDk6Mzc6MjYgUE0gRVNUPGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IDxiPk5l dyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAu dHh0PC9iPjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgdHlw ZT0iY2l0ZSI+DQo8ZGl2PjxzcGFuPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj5BIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9m IEktRCwgZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAudHh0PC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFu PmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgQmVybmllIFZvbHogYW5kIHBvc3Rl ZCB0byB0aGU8L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+SUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Ljwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+TmFtZTogJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXM8L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+UmV2aXNpb246ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDswMDwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj5UaXRsZTogJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7RHluYW1pYyBIb3N0IENvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gUHJvdG9jb2wgZm9yIElQdjYgKERI Q1B2NikgYmlzPC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPkRvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsy MDE0LTAxLTA2PC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPkdyb3VwOiAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAm bmJzcDtJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb248L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+UGFnZXM6ICZuYnNw OyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOzEwMTwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj5VUkw6ICZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWRoY3dn LWRoYy1yZmMzMzE1YmlzLTAwLnR4dCI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFm dHMvZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAudHh0PC9hPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bh bj5TdGF0dXM6ICZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWRoY3dnLWRo Yy1yZmMzMzE1YmlzLyI+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtZGhj d2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMvPC9hPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj5IdG1saXplZDogJm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYu b3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtZGhjd2ctZGhjLXJmYzMzMTViaXMtMDAiPmh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWRoY3dnLWRoYy1yZmMzMzE1YmlzLTAwPC9hPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+PC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPkFic3RyYWN0Ojwvc3Bh bj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDtUaGUgRHluYW1pYyBIb3N0IENvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24g UHJvdG9jb2wgZm9yIElQdjYgKERIQ1ApIGVuYWJsZXMgREhDUDwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj4m bmJzcDsmbmJzcDtzZXJ2ZXJzIHRvIHBhc3MgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIHN1Y2gg YXMgSVB2NiBuZXR3b3JrPC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO2FkZHJlc3NlcyB0 byBJUHY2IG5vZGVzLiAmbmJzcDtJdCBvZmZlcnMgdGhlIGNhcGFiaWxpdHkgb2YgYXV0b21hdGlj PC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO2FsbG9jYXRpb24gb2YgcmV1c2FibGUgbmV0 d29yayBhZGRyZXNzZXMgYW5kIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDtmbGV4aWJpbGl0eS4gJm5ic3A7VGhpcyBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyBhIHN0 YXRlZnVsIGNvdW50ZXJwYXJ0IHRvICZxdW90O0lQdjY8L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7U3RhdGVsZXNzIEFkZHJlc3MgQXV0b2NvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24mcXVvdDsgKFJGQyAyNDYy KSwgYW5kIGNhbiBiZSB1c2VkPC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwO3NlcGFyYXRl bHkgb3IgY29uY3VycmVudGx5IHdpdGggdGhlIGxhdHRlciB0byBvYnRhaW4gY29uZmlndXJhdGlv bjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDtwYXJhbWV0ZXJzLjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+PC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4+UGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNv dXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8 c3Bhbj51bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0 IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZyI+DQp0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4uPC9z cGFuPjxicj4NCjxzcGFuPjwvc3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj5UaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdDwv c3Bhbj48YnI+DQo8c3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8L2Jv ZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_901BBBD6F8034E88B5C3DCE4A2AA8C8Eciscocom_-- From volz@cisco.com Mon Jan 13 07:13:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1413C1AE1E4 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:13:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IDMNq-dM1DRA for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC1D1AE1DE for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:13:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4230; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389625972; x=1390835572; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=G91PT5nEJeu8A0mvuolxzPPtLstirvSegXOQaKrAcJY=; b=Ylu6jJxm8XvG9KK8o1xvstEXZV2BFDIosK4L52hBZMPnoHckM3JHuXrJ aTx0+djMd4ZNX4lAh7gZs7/mYOGja43DY5iZal3dKIklPvI/YCHKRdzAI GfdXZ9iIVJIKvAsv1iPo0hB50pVmoxME8NiTvmqXl7Xz1IG2lhQ9hMJ4/ I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEHACgB1FKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagkdEOFaxGIhVgRMWdIInAQQdEF4BDB5WJgEEG4d8DZpxqhAXjjYBAR6DXIETBJlHkGWDLYFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,653,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="297001587" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2014 15:12:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0DFCqHj025516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:12:52 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:12:52 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8QcQDsRAhiIYjCTp6frUYpiNZ3DQ== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:12:51 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.189] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630xmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:13:12 -0000 --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all: A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to det= ermine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigur= e-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the a= doption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also stat= e your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on Jan= uary 27, 2014. The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted t= o get it on the charter. Regards, Tomek & Bernie --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all:

 

A call for adoption is being initiated at the req= uest of the authors to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt dra= ft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or no= t you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your = objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on January &n= bsp;27, 2014.

 

The HTML version of the document can be viewed at= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02.

 

If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, = we will confirm with Ted to get it on the charter.

 

Regards,

Tomek & Bernie

 

--_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630xmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon Jan 13 07:40:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F97B1AE15A for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:40:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.439 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NodTxm5hwn3B for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:40:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CBA1ADF86 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:40:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from porto.nomis80.org (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA6646901 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg@ietf.org References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:40:58 -0000 In favour. I commented on earlier revisions. Comments for future revisions: - First, I think it would be better protocol design to make OPTION_HOST_CONNECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would be represented by bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits would be reserved for future use. - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on the previous state? - Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from "no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of messages I suppose. Simon Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit : > Hi all: > > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to > determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether > or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you > are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. > This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. > > The HTML version of the document can be viewed at > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. > > If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with > Ted to get it on the charter. > > Regards, > > Tomek & Bernie > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon Jan 13 07:52:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0AF1AE17D for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.439 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3tR7f1-7LT4t for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C59B1AE18B for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from porto.nomis80.org (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FF7E468E9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:52:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52D40B9F.8030605@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:51:59 -0500 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg@ietf.org References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:52:13 -0000 Le 2014-01-13 10:40, Simon Perreault a écrit : > - Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state > of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from s/RA/RS/ Simon > "no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with > this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of > messages I suppose. -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From volz@cisco.com Mon Jan 13 08:10:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7F31AE19F for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:10:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gaTwSf06tPg1 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB751AC4A7 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:10:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3096; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389629427; x=1390839027; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=316wvL+3CPmlMoQjw8EicL23SdC1ix7GZHVzjfyNv7w=; b=QBuw0l8PWGOWvo/mgoaWGeOnTG1m1Mllamny1Ks7Bb8s0Em/Q+hE7eUc dAXyce1uMRelgSozNdhUljFAwtIwSx/6+BSvFeyndr92Ku9D+F6Pk/Vam aPBc/yLWcXS1LfBatxj/2fWbGRUVyUjbgrZ9E8hZCAaoTWn+sRBSselhy E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAPUO1FKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABagws4VrlugRQWdIIlAQEBBAEBARoKRxcEAgEIEQQBAQsdBycLFAkIAQEEARIIh3wNxE4XjjYBAR44BoMegRMEiQuQPJBlgW+BPoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,653,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="296962219" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2014 16:10:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0DGAREN014010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:10:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:10:27 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: Simon Perreault , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8QcQDsRAhiIYjCTp6frUYpiNZ3DQANxxuAAAvHSGA= Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1AE39@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.189] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:10:40 -0000 Hi: Once adopted, we can request changes. I too think it would be better to just provide information about the curren= t state of a host's addresses rather than report transition states (transit= ions would trigger a Reconfigure-request). If there is a good reason for re= porting state changes, perhaps both should be reported (i.e., flags and sta= te change - or old vs new state)? That way the server can use either set to= do its processing? Also, as mentioned in the document, the option should be allowed to be sent= by the host directly (though of course, it will be far quicker to get this= rolled out if the relay agents are modified rather than all hosts). - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:41 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 -= respond by Jan 27, 2014 In favour. I commented on earlier revisions. Comments for future revisions: - First, I think it would be better protocol design to make OPTION_HOST_CON= NECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would be represented by = bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits would be reserved for = future use. - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report *transitions*? = Isn't it better to make the relay report the current state only, and let th= e DHCP server figure out the transition based on the previous state? - Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state of = a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from "no sta= ck" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with this easily= , whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of messages I suppo= se. Simon Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a =E9crit : > Hi all: > > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors=20 > to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state=20 > whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this=20 > mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your = response. > This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. > > The HTML version of the document can be viewed at=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. > > If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with=20 > Ted to get it on the charter. > > Regards, > > Tomek & Bernie > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From volz@cisco.com Mon Jan 13 10:03:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8711ADFD7 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:03:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2SsvAuoS2WM for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F149A1ADFA0 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:03:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389636227; x=1390845827; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=JO8MEVnZmAJCAz2nFp80669ZEpiwWVMLCqwqvUsPaQM=; b=fqwyTiGO0vH8qPIUv04m7F3ZbjK4QlIBeR9d8Tcm+toDRBqCwuIw9Ybs rwrPsPKzbAxmmQxTCLWtpOykP8zhX8JHeVZr/zw8+cgUjj3gzH09xSkij FI89qE+UkXPgk6eGHVFeTfrGqbyYN91IOdjFsBkM07EBYcsAur/L2UYYK A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoFACIq1FKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagkdEOFa5cYEXFnSCJwEEHRBBHQEqViYBBBsBh3sNmwWpaxeOMAMjg1yBEwSUM5V5gy2BaUE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,654,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="294027659" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2014 18:03:45 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0DI3ij1026018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:03:44 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:03:44 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) Thread-Index: Ac8QicsdauE7TMjdQ2Oym9UwCvtTNw== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:03:43 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.189] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259xmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:03:59 -0000 --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi: The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See http://www.ietf.org/meet= ing/89/index.html for more details, including venue information and importa= nt dates. Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The co-chairs will finaliz= e the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and will give priority to i= tems as follows (in this order): 1. WG documents with active working group discussion or that are deem= ed critical (i.e., have upcoming milestones) 2. WG documents with little or no discussion (provided there is a str= ong reason for the discussion ... i.e., a higher bandwidth discussion is ne= eded) 3. Non WG documents with active working group discussion 4. Non WG documents with little or no discussion We will limit the number of presentations to reduce the chance that we don'= t get to them all. Please be sure to focus your presentations on issues that need discussion o= r input (new work can include an overview, but should be kept to a minimum)= . Status updates can be sent to the mailing list. If you would like time, please indicate: - Draft name or topic - Who will present - How much time is needed - Why is time needed (tell us why you can't get what you need by p= osting on the mailing list) and what will be covered We have requested a 2.5 hour time slot. Thanks. - Tomek & Bernie --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi:

 

The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See <= a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html"> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html for more details, including v= enue information and important dates.

 

Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The= co-chairs will finalize the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and = will give priority to items as follows (in this order):

 

1.     &= nbsp; WG documents with active working group discussion o= r that are deemed critical (i.e., have upcoming milestones)

2.     &= nbsp; WG documents with little or no discussion (provided= there is a strong reason for the discussion … i.e., a higher bandwid= th discussion is needed)

3.     &= nbsp; Non WG documents with active working group discussi= on

4.     &= nbsp; Non WG documents with little or no discussion<= /o:p>

 

We will limit the number of presentations to reduce = the chance that we don’t get to them all.

 

Please be sure to focus your presentations on issues= that need discussion or input (new work can include an overview, but shoul= d be kept to a minimum). Status updates can be sent to the mailing list.

 

If you would like time, please indicate:<= /p>

-     &= nbsp;    Draft name or topic

-     &= nbsp;    Who will present

-     &= nbsp;    How much time is needed

-     &= nbsp;    Why is time needed (tell us why you can’t get= what you need by posting on the mailing list) and what will be covered

 

We have requested a 2.5 hour time slot.

 

Thanks.

 

-     &= nbsp;    Tomek & Bernie

 

--_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259xmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From volz@cisco.com Tue Jan 14 13:26:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C971AE2AA for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:26:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hpxuzz6g8jI0 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA281ADF99 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1647; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389734778; x=1390944378; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=30j+64M1vwbe4kZT1bC0a5EYed2cIqd36A/eYY0FIhE=; b=cuK+B9ffSwqipVc6XpNpkgWexGxaGZ09qqVQWS4KKBSOmdKP2ZFSB9Bc U5wrry86Z4/6+4MCd98oLvXApPbTHlbtcEXDJ9NwKD566kfFunB4N2UFF yhMz4sgecpcjH3l9KAxowm+nX2kggJxBddYEzsYmYOh1rzKilkoqJTe0z I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8FAKGq1VKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagws4VrpsgRgWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsXBgEIEQQBAQEKHS4LFAkJAQQTCId8DZkMqmcTBI5WPoMegRMEiQ2hJoMtgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,659,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="297301732" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2014 21:26:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0ELQHxC001876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:26:17 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:26:17 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 Thread-Index: Ac8RbvjnR7wHzR7iTQy6lhZdhZEp8g== Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1EEB5@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.7] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:26:32 -0000 Hi: We've left this WGLC open pending the last call on the v4configuration draf= t. The authors of the v4configuration draft have been working on updating i= t and should be submitting it shortly, at which time we will start the WGLC= for it. We will then close the last calls for both documents (dhcpv4-over-= dhcpv6 and v4configuration) at the same time. Sorry for the delay but as the two documents are closely related, we feel i= t is best to hold off until both can be reviewed. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:58 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-= 03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013 On 16.12.2013 15:40, Simon Perreault wrote: > Le 2013-12-14 10:10, Bernie Volz (volz) a =E9crit : >> WGLC on the related draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-03 is in progress >=20 > Is this true? I can't find the announcement, and the datatracker=20 > doesn't show the draft as being in WGLC... No, that was a mistake. Bernie and I exchanged preliminary WGLC announcemen= t text, but due to the discussion about dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 we still haven't= sent it out. So no - there is no WGLC on v4configuration yet, but there li= kely will be in the next couple days. It will be long enough so people who take holiday + new year vacation will = be able to get back and post their comments when they get back in January. Tomek _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jan 15 07:46:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BE81AE3A2; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:46:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGid1GbPEaBW; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DE71AE0EC; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:46:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140115154611.24452.33159.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:46:11 -0800 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:46:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Provisioning IPv4 Configuration Over IPv6 Only Ne= tworks Authors : Branimir Rajtar Ian Farrer Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2014-01-15 Abstract: As IPv6 becomes more widely adopted, some service providers are choosing to deploy IPv6 only networks without dual-stack functionality for IPv4. However, as access to IPv4 based services will continue to be a requirement for the foreseeable future, IPv4 over IPv6 mechanisms, such as softwire tunnels are being developed. In order to provision end-user's hosts with the IPv4 configuration necessary for such mechanisms, a number of different approaches have been proposed. This memo discusses each of the proposals, identifies the benefits and drawbacks and recommends a single approach as the basis for future deployment and development. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Wed Jan 15 10:49:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1C1AE3DC for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.922 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngG19SzWsGTY for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD151AE134 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id g10so4553963wiw.13 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=30Vjiuo0UmY1TdFVrzLf17UryrBV4TN6AhUEb/KpPNI=; b=tej1tZwmT8TAVs+LPveYdaXL4ye7YxM8BJTLA0jBcWSTAWMWJpwtJx8G3H6vBizp7v Pz91uUsFvf4afuSbJIjJoGRCu8mGDbN443ajswzjcRjB9iuEtYdgnV3D+JypVBjnPCUu 2tvPB/Xtp2lQKO1kG4uEIzDvDx2fulPzknl3593xelHy2FY62IyAVl92lto8YnudoHRn GBMYgroen8ixKh2hWN2u1pqOAZinXbiz8hf9pPuFPtakbLwJO+Vm1QWC47i/tjIMGWVT nI0A312cCN7DZ/dfdGHBmGFo7lIeSM+aViyOF68NU1rv8+xu92au71ujpHm+O56RV2Yz RnYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.59.210 with SMTP id b18mr4093757wjr.60.1389811779721; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.120.167 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:39 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: frg6ZJAe3eaawORToaWsWPTJRFQ Message-ID: From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Simon Perreault Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:49:54 -0000 At Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500, Simon Perreault wrote: > - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report > *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current > state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on > the previous state? I had a similar or the same question/concern. I may not fully understand the background or some details of the proposal, but it seemed to be introducing a substantial design to relay agents, i.e., making them more stateful while they were originally designed to be highly stateless. I don't know what can be considered a blocking issue for adoption and what can be discussed after adoption, but in my gut feeling it's better to have some rough level consensus on how much we are willing to allow relay agents to be stateful before adopting it. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From vdadu@microsoft.com Thu Jan 16 04:24:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5AF1AE326 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:24:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MhSP-BLd0p4v for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0205.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9B01AE31A for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from BY2PR03CA037.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.234.158) by BY2PR03MB620.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.93.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.13; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:56 +0000 Received: from BN1AFFO11FD032.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::102) by BY2PR03CA037.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:2c2c::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.13 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:56 +0000 Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1AFFO11FD032.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.12 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:55 +0000 Received: from SINEX14HUBC403.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.217) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.2; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:12 +0000 Received: from SINEX14MBXC418.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.40]) by SINEX14HUBC403.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.220.217]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.002; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:10 +0000 From: Vivek Dadu To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 and dhcp option 82 sub-option 5 Thread-Index: Ac8StZJncfxA+dXbSxOzBKsZbhMVuQ== Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7B@SINEX14MBXC418.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.99] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7BSINEX14MBXC418s_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(779001)(679001)(689001)(189002)(199002)(53754006)(31966008)(71186001)(54316002)(33656001)(90146001)(74502001)(56816005)(55846006)(16236675002)(81686001)(80976001)(56776001)(59766001)(77982001)(79102001)(65816001)(20776003)(63696002)(81542001)(74366001)(69226001)(85852003)(53806001)(54356001)(16796002)(83072002)(512954002)(51856001)(93136001)(46102001)(92726001)(74662001)(80022001)(47446002)(76482001)(92566001)(6806004)(87266001)(81342001)(4396001)(76176001)(19300405004)(44976005)(83322001)(47736001)(77096001)(19580395003)(50986001)(47976001)(49866001)(2656002)(15202345003)(76796001)(84326002)(81816001)(74876001)(87936001)(76786001)(15975445006)(85306002)(93516002)(74706001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB620; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY) X-Forefront-PRVS: 0093C80C01 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:01 -0800 Subject: [dhcwg] Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 and dhcp option 82 sub-option 5 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:27:48 -0000 --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7BSINEX14MBXC418s_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All I would like to know whether there are any link selection options for dhcpv= 6 like option 118 for dhcpv4 client and Option 82 Sub-option 5 for DHCP V4 = relay agents. Regards Vivek --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7BSINEX14MBXC418s_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All

I would like to know whether there are any link sele= ction options for dhcpv6 like option 118 for dhcpv4 client and Option 82 Su= b-option 5 for DHCP V4 relay agents.

Regards

Vivek

--_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7BSINEX14MBXC418s_-- From volz@cisco.com Thu Jan 16 06:19:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2BE1AE2C3 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:19:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBbSX98foIF3 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:19:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C145E1AE0C8 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:19:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7783; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389881977; x=1391091577; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=TFZp0FzwGBuUrHjumtlzKKhV3rePmNdUKdgbSmw6U30=; b=JnXwHiVvTaw8acs5vYCIrhq3eqBEUGUHmlEgz/o6CclPxB3HLAdZNlXf 3C+wBL08Faebu2larVoL/jOE2w60DZXN/httSec4uAxTrvA+OV1zXW195 Gx6eFiuCiYHddGO53ja46LjpqGnWMxB01/vMjARtWgOZQdbsniC3kwfLA g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEFAObp11KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgkdEOFa7C4ELFnSCJQEBAQQtXAIBCA4DBAEBCx0HMhQJCAEBBAESCId8xDUXjk43AYMkgRQEqjiBb4E+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,668,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="297558350" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2014 14:19:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0GEJaEo017319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:19:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:19:36 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: Vivek Dadu , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 and dhcp option 82 sub-option 5 Thread-Index: Ac8StZJncfxA+dXbSxOzBKsZbhMVuQAEDdNQ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE22FA7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7B@SINEX14MBXC418.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B464E7B@SINEX14MBXC418.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.7] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE22FA7xmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 and dhcp option 82 sub-option 5 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:19:51 -0000 --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE22FA7xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The link-address field in the Relay-Forw is usually used for this and no li= nk-selection option is needed. The reason v4 needs this is that giaddr is both the relay agent's address A= ND the default link-selection. With DHCPv6, there is no overloading - the R= elay Agent address is obtained from the IPv6 header (source address) the li= nk-selection is the link-address field in the Relay-Forw. - Bernie From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vivek Dadu Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:23 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 and dhc= p option 82 sub-option 5 Hi All I would like to know whether there are any link selection options for dhcpv= 6 like option 118 for dhcpv4 client and Option 82 Sub-option 5 for DHCP V4 = relay agents. Regards Vivek --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE22FA7xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The link-address field= in the Relay-Forw is usually used for this and no link-selection option is= needed.

 

The reason v4 needs th= is is that giaddr is both the relay agent’s address AND the default l= ink-selection. With DHCPv6, there is no overloading – the Relay Agent= address is obtained from the IPv6 header (source address) the link-selection is the link-address field in the Relay-Forw.

 

-&nb= sp;         Bernie

 

From: dhcwg [m= ailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vivek Dadu
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:23 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Regarding DhcpV6 alternatives to dhcpv4 option 118 = and dhcp option 82 sub-option 5

 

Hi All

I would like to know whether th= ere are any link selection options for dhcpv6 like option 118 for dhcpv4 cl= ient and Option 82 Sub-option 5 for DHCP V4 relay agents.=

Regards

Vivek

--_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE22FA7xmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From praspati@cisco.com Thu Jan 16 09:34:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D441AE171 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:34:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8T9ge8m7L5Mq for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E31C1AE132 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:34:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2356; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389893662; x=1391103262; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4jKSdBORknXxo4KSNysAgdjFUtMu6r3wl8Hed9FluAw=; b=XY/vXmoqY1SgYoJXhbF2Zz/6VzcfdxhiBj6HsfLjzjfU71bgw4w3EVMZ dSJ4kZvOZL9p8XKoPUM77Mzym54aHnW/xiqcoZysTEMRkOVn2JoET5iBL k/B8NbOM6BoVWTgtIoUrg+dMuAp5lqalnlODle1X4TlOPh/vBpkoQRizg Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFAL0X2FKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABZgws4VrsLgQ4WdIImAQEEAQEBGgpHGwIBCEYnCyUCBAESiAQNxGAXji4BAVaEOASJD48SgTGQZoFvgT6BcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,668,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="13368673" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2014 17:34:21 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0GHYL0d002056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:34:21 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.150]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:34:21 -0600 From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" To: Simon Perreault , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: AQHPEuEwZDXVSCEXckm05bt25496ng== Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:34:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.65.38.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:34:37 -0000 Agreed, it's not necessary to report actual transition change. Notifying current state should suffice. -Prashanth On 1/13/14 9:10 PM, "Simon Perreault" wrote: >In favour. I commented on earlier revisions. > >Comments for future revisions: > >- First, I think it would be better protocol design to make >OPTION_HOST_CONNECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would >be represented by bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits >would be reserved for future use. > >- Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report >*transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current >state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on >the previous state? > >- Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state >of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from >"no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with >this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of >messages I suppose. > >Simon > >Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a =E9crit : >> Hi all: >> >> A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to >> determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt >> draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether >> or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you >> are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. >> This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. >> >> The HTML version of the document can be viewed at >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. >> >> If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with >> Ted to get it on the charter. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tomek & Bernie >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dhcwg mailing list >> dhcwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >> > > >--=20 >DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >_______________________________________________ >dhcwg mailing list >dhcwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From praspati@cisco.com Thu Jan 16 09:36:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4C41AE3CC for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvsQpsp24zoW for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A348B1AE3B4 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1385; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389893764; x=1391103364; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=PXzwtGAtN+yfDTMK01THnYKEGcEFxZMAgGM2xXs5QH4=; b=NeC3WroxaT+P8/BQEO3CXpFOCnocXPRUSLwvfC5uGeRGsKLvr6DSYzdq S3OrbE8GuN3wJ2ljd+8AU02ytlchbS/j+89n9DsSFEcuj2FqTdVCzTxDc juYRuws4WofZHQOzkqABLf1xc6cU0+VasDmNahJ81imm+9RQyH168z1oH 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFAL0X2FKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgws4VoJ+ph6Rb4EOFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEeAUwLEAIBCBgBAwsaAwInCyUCBAENBYgEDYxJm2wBnCoTBIEmjVkHgmyBTASYIZIXgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,668,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="13379487" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2014 17:36:04 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0GHa4Iw007506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.150]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:36:04 -0600 From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" To: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= , "Simon Perreault" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: AQHPEuFtZDXVSCEXckm05bt25496ng== Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.65.38.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:19 -0000 Hi, On 1/16/14 12:19 AM, "=1B$B?@L@C#:H=1B(B" wrote: >At Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500, >Simon Perreault wrote: > >> - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report >> *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current >> state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on >> the previous state? > >I had a similar or the same question/concern. I may not fully >understand the background or some details of the proposal, but it >seemed to be introducing a substantial design to relay agents, i.e., >making them more stateful while they were originally designed to be >highly stateless. Sure. Reporting transitions could be made simpler, as Simon suggests, by just reporting current state. Changes may not be substantial; Relay agents, in most cases, would at least keep state of what's been assigned/relayed. -Prashanth > >I don't know what can be considered a blocking issue for adoption and >what can be discussed after adoption, but in my gut feeling it's >better to have some rough level consensus on how much we are willing >to allow relay agents to be stateful before adopting it. > >-- >JINMEI, Tatuya >_______________________________________________ >dhcwg mailing list >dhcwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 17 08:33:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8325D1AE16A; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:33:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jwA06pif4hKd; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11D31AE16E; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:33:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140117163343.26517.20316.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:33:43 -0800 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-04.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:33:50 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 Transport Authors : Qi Sun Yong Cui Marcin Siodelski Suresh Krishnan Ian Farrer Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-04.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2014-01-17 Abstract: IPv4 connectivity is still needed as networks migrate towards IPv6. Users require IPv4 configuration even if the uplink to their service provider supports IPv6 only. This document describes a mechanism for obtaining IPv4 configuration information dynamically in IPv6 networks by carrying DHCPv4 messages over DHCPv6 transport. Two new DHCPv6 messages and two new DHCPv6 options are defined for this purpose. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Fri Jan 17 13:50:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6CA1ACCEA for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H960TyfLWh0Z for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-x235.google.com (mail-ee0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E781ACCE0 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id t10so2366637eei.40 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N6Z8OKYTxkRRheDVPvul0yfWYhd4Vdpa8qA0daaDrFA=; b=EEnSIybamzTOlxcPDNGIdPzRFGSGbLuldtiKYmLxvdS7PB0nvwe0JxCQqdbl9GwPJF TsTC2dzNFjFCQTvRqPsZdhs+Vy7w48udpRv9UBfqWfr4jShnXn6awvb4dQGD7zdStBQT aevOLVlXavFFTS1KYAzSs3sxq7zLylIrC9YjESfhgY2wbxSVsDRYzirDMbuTiXUo0GAZ HsacNw5vNdtsM7Hsv5XN0KTVCS5P3s84ZV3WBZDn25gYQ9Lwax1zn/Ab9gi5QrA4OarX Ql5Vkl8v45oqSi+Ie//QuxP8iMISejqHzY566Pzc5jvwV7eKbUZfQ/Jj56qCJWhre5m3 Pxow== X-Received: by 10.14.126.1 with SMTP id a1mr4865389eei.81.1389995422461; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from thomson-osx.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z46sm30236215een.1.2014.01.17.13.50.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:50:21 +0100 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DHC WG References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:50:37 -0000 Folks, Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January. If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I like the other solution better" is not a technical comment. Please note that: - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question. - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must not do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issue at a time. - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4 without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends: DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6". With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prove whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere. There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time to wrap things up here and move on. Bernie & Tomek From tireddy@cisco.com Sat Jan 18 03:25:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC961ADF24 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:25:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4FbMvFoGgi1 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26C61ADF22 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:25:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=979; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390044315; x=1391253915; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mygj3S2VgQc+GfmClpYGNvdifN94huJfXOlP0+5wzpQ=; b=N5tqHCUaB7zWcUbe3OkUTxFnZs2MMZnAoyjHxqc67k5aM03rbUExVqIL MkQak4qwmTZOb2CABJONioBoh8aZfD1vFjvuhy4amFaLD/bY6G/g82giO zMn7XN3f9C1iqAwCVUSP0DPv01PrUPz8EHBLWFH+IgEFPRXE2sajPwcvv c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAFhj2lKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgws4VrsqgQgWdIIlAQEBBB1uAQgRAwECC1YdCQEEEwiHfQ2YVatKF44uAQEeg1yBFASJD5BDkGaBb4E+gXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,680,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="298205027" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2014 11:25:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0IBPEYb005238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:25:15 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.227]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:25:14 -0600 From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8UP/K7F818VTfBQkCwBI2rNSurAA== Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:25:13 +0000 Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428CF38@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.65.38.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:25:30 -0000 I support adoption of this draft (as a co-author). -Tiru. From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42 PM To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - res= pond by Jan 27, 2014 Hi all: =A0 A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to det= ermine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigur= e-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the a= doption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also stat= e your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on Jan= uary =A027, 2014. =A0 The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. =A0 If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted t= o get it on the charter. =A0 Regards, Tomek & Bernie =A0 From gnocuil@gmail.com Sat Jan 18 23:15:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0331AD94A for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bg4ZlB3XYHgG for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03771A1F6F for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so5014358qcy.39 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OX79XBt4dKCB/mvbAo+Q4P9lMU/Znr1GjYBSMIAoVeE=; b=f0Okomyr6FMvWby5fidEPi0Z9lDAemVkPpwUjnXusqRygN6YTtQaR404+i3+0p0oNb 58B5hdN8CgfQqznZUKZFDaFqIxre7fo4cSdEA+a6mHd9W/+gYTUs+vW92sxZMrNXxYGe lba/1+VLx/ux77kKzQNIpGlBvDKHtpvIww2e+3Zet0Uc/jQVwRB66v/d4c+mn0Nrp0sv NM7k5KGEwG7rSKuHbO9EsbS5DmRGajFD9Fw8jatzQiR40qnK6JhfBk2ByrDDGY3YM3T7 D9jKDuSund79Ks7ppU0wu5BK3OqLMiY6YrRE/VYbz4L4nHoVqBeVde4zfM3r+/0PXj8X 781g== X-Received: by 10.140.49.9 with SMTP id p9mr15571692qga.75.1390115733396; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.96.218.104 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:15:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428CF38@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428CF38@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> From: Cong Liu Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:15:13 +0800 Message-ID: To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11351c9a7cea1104f04d8af5 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 07:15:48 -0000 --001a11351c9a7cea1104f04d8af5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The host transition may occur when it moves (e.g. from one room to another). The new first-hop relay doesn't have the previous state of the host, so reporting current state would be better. I support adoption. Cong 2014/1/18 Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) > I support adoption of this draft (as a co-author). > > -Tiru. > > From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" > Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42 PM > To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" > Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - > respond by Jan 27, 2014 > > Hi all: > > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to > determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or > not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are > not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This > adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. > > The HTML version of the document can be viewed at > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. > > If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted > to get it on the charter. > > Regards, > Tomek & Bernie > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > --001a11351c9a7cea1104f04d8af5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The host transition may occur when it moves (e.g. fro= m one room to another). The new
first-hop relay doesn't h= ave the previous state of the host, so reporting current state=A0
would be better.

I support adoption.
Cong


2014/1/18 Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) &= lt;tireddy@cisco.com= >
I support adoption of this draft (as a co-au= thor).

-Tiru.

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <= volz@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42 PM
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - res= pond by Jan 27, 2014

Hi all:
=A0
A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to det= ermine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigur= e-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of t= he adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also = state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on= January =A027, 2014.
=A0
The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://to= ols.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02.
=A0
If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted t= o get it on the charter.
=A0
Regards,
Tomek & Bernie
=A0
_____________________________= __________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

--001a11351c9a7cea1104f04d8af5-- From otroan@employees.org Mon Jan 20 02:37:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808CF1A00EA for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:37:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.465 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SfWq8u4vktO1 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295DC1A00CC for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:37:18 -0800 (PST) X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFABr83FKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwu8S4EOFnSCJgEBBIEJCxI0SQ4GiBjDVBeOJ1+DJIEUBJA7mX+DLjuBLA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,689,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="3884901" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 10:37:15 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com [10.147.113.220]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0KAbEOb027023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:37:15 GMT From: Ole Troan Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E4689441-3954-4801-BBB0-96BE3113CF2D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:37:19 +0100 References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> To: DHC WG In-Reply-To: <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:37:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E4689441-3954-4801-BBB0-96BE3113CF2D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii this document now looks a lot better. here are some comments (draft text indented). In today's home networks, each residential user is allocated a single global IPv4 address which is used for NAT44. Decentralizing NAT44 allows for much better scaling and, when combined with stateless network functions, can simplify redundancy and logging. This results in the need to provision a number of configuration parameters to the CPE, such as the external public IPv4 address and a restricted port- range to use for NAT. Other parameters may also be necessary, depending on the underlying transport technology that is in use. In IPv4 only networks, DHCPv4 has often been used to provide IPv4 configuration, but in an IPv6 only network, DHCPv4 messages cannot be transported natively. you need to contrast "Decentralised NAT44" with CGN for this paragraph = to make sense. Although IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire tunnel and translation clients are currently the only use-case for DHCP based configuration of IPv4 parameters in IPv6 only networks, a suitable approach must not be limited to only supporting softwires configuration or be reliant on specific underlying IPv4 over IPv6 architectures or mechanisms. are you saying that there is a requirement for a host to acquire = information over DHCPv4, but that node does not have any IPv4 connectivity? that seems quite farfetched, I think this needs elaboration, or just = delete the paragraph 3. Use DHCPv6 as above for external IPv4 address and source port configuration. Use DHCPv4 over IPv4 messages within an IPv6 softwire for configuring additional parameters. This is referred to as DHCPv6 + Stateless DHCPv4oSW. what is "as above", map-dhcp? if so I suggest you rename this, or even better move it above under the = "simple configuration". "stateless DHCPv4" doesn't solve the requirement you started out with = for "complex configurations". add some more text in the introduction about the goals of these = mechanisms? e.g. reuse of existing implementations, minimal change on existing = components, implementation issues so on (oh, I see you have that in section 2) with regards to protocol stack. UDPv6 is not a protocol. just use UDP. and I think you can remove the tunnel encapsulation from your protocol = stack, especially since some of the softwire mechanisms use translation. just like you don't have the L2 header on the native packets either. in section 1.4: Broadcast based DHCPv4 DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) can not be transported as they are not compatible with the existing, unicast based softwire architecture. I don't think this claim is correct. I don't see good reasons why = DS-lite couldn't (or doesn't already) support broadcast. I'm not sure this section fits in with the others. it doesn't solve the = problem of DHCPv4 leases. either move it somewhere else or make it clear that this is the option = one can use if the operator only requires other configuration information for IPv4. also remove that "only theoretical" language and lack of internet draft = statement. unless there is a strong belief that there are unsolved problems here = and that protocol changes are required to run DHCPINFORM over a p2p link. section 2: I don't understand bullet 7. more detail? section 3 title, you only have four mechanisms 3.1.1. should be more truthful in that multiple new relay components are = required. 3.1.2. says that, so remove the conflict 3.2.1 (4) I don't think existing implementations of carrying DHCPv4 = options exist. if anyone really really wanted to go down this route, you = could just create an DHCPv6 encapsulation option for all DHCPv4 options. that way you don't need to port all = options. 3.2.2 it doesn't have to be tied to the DHCPv6 leasetimes (whatever = is meant by that). IPv4 addresses could have its own IA, or be treated as such. = anyway, I'm not suggesting this route. 3.3.2: I suggest you remove the unproven bullet 9. isn't that just a = matter of testing it out with an existing implementation? with regards to bullet 8. I suggest a separate section where = you describe softwire behaviour. _all_ proposed softwire mechanisms are hub and spoke, with = regards to traffic outside of the softwire domain. which makes bullet 8 read a little strangely, given that no = mechanism is restricted by it. shouldn't section 3.4 be removed? given that that method is described in = section 5. section 3.5.2: add a cons about communication between the DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 server, = presumably these need to be directly connected? or there must be an = DHCPv4 relay directly connected to the DHCPv6 server. _or_ is the = expectation here that the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers must be co-located = on the same host? if so, state that. section 5: the title is wrong. I suggest: Transporting DHCPv4 messages over an IPv4 = capable softwire" the tunnel is the link-layer. a link-layer that offers IPv4 transport. apart from that the section looks fine. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_E4689441-3954-4801-BBB0-96BE3113CF2D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS3PxfAAoJEFuJXizso86g9QMH/jNeDYlQLGNRR21+U8NRplC3 xGTtdAWT3xcd/wCitF7AAsmMj7SzywAK04u3vxvm/XkO/OHqTfuWJ53g6QnFYwmV 1irhIeydJVWUYS5rCaGxq42R+VlENx5Y9cqmr5MrdVbnNVaBr/cHKwrLIREXeqi5 PX6jzk1vKtNphdQ9c9WElBt09za4iso30MozYedPjlYCzhFIN4AkSFziz8ebQ7/K g7tUw251yvaKP2MRDF9MFazKISo3948yxx/Kl53eGgGYTG5jqhBgYUGZzt+xPrZ8 rsyFfjU3snqcIzGwxHe9Ft0Sj8/l5bMc89JHpLwi599jUrgiCMBMmGAg7UKYm0g= =Zw82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E4689441-3954-4801-BBB0-96BE3113CF2D-- From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Mon Jan 20 05:01:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDF31A014B for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:01:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J76wWmPNyeYr for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E451A0142 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EE020C057A for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:01:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CCD74158074 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:01:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:01:50 +0100 From: To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:01:48 +0100 Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8QcQDsRAhiIYjCTp6frUYpiNZ3DQFbp7ig Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255389@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255389PUEXCB1Bnante_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.19.63615 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:01:53 -0000 --_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255389PUEXCB1Bnante_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, I support the adoption of this document. Cheers, Med PS: I'm also co-author of the document. De : dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Bernie Volz (volz) Envoy=E9 : lundi 13 janvier 2014 16:13 =C0 : dhcwg@ietf.org Objet : [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - resp= ond by Jan 27, 2014 Hi all: A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to det= ermine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigur= e-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the a= doption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also stat= e your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on Jan= uary 27, 2014. The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted t= o get it on the charter. Regards, Tomek & Bernie --_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255389PUEXCB1Bnante_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

 

I support the adoption of this document.

 

Cheers,

Med

=  

PS: I’m also co-author= of the document.

 =

De :<= /b> dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Bernie Vol= z (volz)
Envoy=E9 : lundi 13 janvier 2014 16:13
=C0&nb= sp;: dhcwg@ietf.org
Objet : [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - d= raft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

 

Hi all:

 

=

A call for adoption is being initiated at the reque= st of the authors to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft= -wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not = you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in= favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption c= all will complete on January  27, 2014.

 

The HTML version of th= e document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-rec= onfigure-02.

 

If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, w= e will confirm with Ted to get it on the charter.

 

Regards,

Tomek & Bernie

 

= --_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255389PUEXCB1Bnante_-- From vdadu@microsoft.com Mon Jan 20 05:54:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A061A0166 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:54:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XMACdVhZuYSq for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CD61A0162 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:53:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from BY2PR03CA033.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.234.154) by BY2PR03MB208.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.36.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.13; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:50 +0000 Received: from BN1BFFO11FD023.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::1:143) by BY2PR03CA033.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:2c2c::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.13 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:50 +0000 Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1BFFO11FD023.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.144.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.12 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:50 +0000 Received: from SINEX14HUBC502.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.61) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.2; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:10 +0000 Received: from SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.13]) by SINEX14HUBC502.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::df3:7769:8d99:21e5%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.002; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:08 +0000 From: Vivek Dadu To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: regarding the relay agents, VPN Devices and broadcast bit Thread-Index: Ac8V5S6N2v3d0hNeTH6fzFDmG+SRRw== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:53:07 +0000 Message-ID: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBD@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.94] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBDSINEX14MBXC417s_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(53754006)(199002)(189002)(33656001)(16236675002)(59766001)(69226001)(74502001)(92566001)(81342001)(74366001)(49866001)(55846006)(77982001)(51856001)(46102001)(65816001)(76482001)(80022001)(86362001)(54356001)(63696002)(81816001)(71186001)(15202345003)(93136001)(80976001)(74662001)(93516002)(81686001)(15975445006)(31966008)(20776003)(16796002)(74706001)(87266001)(74876001)(47736001)(53806001)(85306002)(76176001)(87936001)(85806002)(83322001)(2656002)(84326002)(56816005)(90146001)(19580395003)(85852003)(6806004)(54316002)(44976005)(83072002)(50986001)(92726001)(47976001)(4396001)(47446002)(81542001)(76796001)(19300405004)(76786001)(512954002)(79102001)(56776001)(77096001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB208; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY) X-Forefront-PRVS: 00979FCB3A X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:59:05 -0800 Subject: [dhcwg] regarding the relay agents, VPN Devices and broadcast bit X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:54:01 -0000 --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBDSINEX14MBXC417s_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All I have a query regarding a scenario concerning option 118. Here it goes "Say a VPN device acting as a dhcp proxy on behalf of its VPN clients has a= n ip address 10.0.0.2 and belongs to subnet 10.0.0.0/24, however it wants t= o assign the ip address belonging to subnet 172.1.1.0/24 to one of its VPN = clients, so it sends the subnet selection option 118 filled with the data 1= 72.1.1.0 and subnet mask filled with data 255.255.255.0 as a result a relay= agent receives it and forwards to dhcpserver, the dhcp server unicasts the= packet to the relay agent, now will the relay agent need a special setting= to tell it that packets destined to 172.1.1.0/24 subnet will be sent on 10= .0.0.0/24 interface" Also would like to know that will the broadcast bit on packet based on whic= h the server decides to broadcast or unicast a response packet have any imp= act on the way relay agent processes the packet. Regards Vivek --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBDSINEX14MBXC417s_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All

I have a query regarding a scenario concerning optio= n 118. Here it goes

 

“Say a VPN device acting as a dhcp proxy on be= half of its VPN clients has an ip address 10.0.0.2 and belongs to subnet 10= .0.0.0/24, however it wants to assign the ip address belonging to subnet 17= 2.1.1.0/24 to one of its VPN clients, so it sends the subnet selection option 118 filled with the data 172.1.1.0 an= d subnet mask filled with data 255.255.255.0 as a result a relay agent rece= ives it and forwards to dhcpserver, the dhcp server unicasts the packet to = the relay agent, now will the relay agent need a special setting to tell it that packets destined to 172.1.1.0= /24 subnet will be sent on 10.0.0.0/24 interface”

Also would like to know that will the broadcast bit = on packet based on which the server decides to broadcast or unicast a respo= nse packet have any impact on the way relay agent processes the packet.

 

Regards

Vivek

--_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBDSINEX14MBXC417s_-- From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 06:11:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0EE61A0170 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHswlTyQwf5Q for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-x236.google.com (mail-ea0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B142C1A0120 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r15so2309951ead.13 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qPNa/HVAKBoABM+ktaXfq0Dz4bu71H9IGr7fex6Q49Y=; b=csdarULXiZWnTrA+DkziJG5CZTSe84XHzq2L8jHsOFJkAHdEYcXW1ozk/WVwzjCR5o o52imCQeMa8ksn2cEkA6PiqsDwgzKBPpoZoH+cg/x51MIveH/5nrDXJvGOWKZxsMtH/K pzWvCTsd3D9Q67OB9ZnWGSOtSyzmHbrJJLeVL1qIn6qFteB4bGtJqEnwx34GeqfYcEXO uVPRa1B1IOQ0YJy/ZHxq6aLDyU3LJUhXVlQtdBdavN0fsRRhyD414HCSYAQrDD6aCHpk VpFlHXz9VPvWWh6tpdP8h7zuAJZspJfCFQk9O4YqaAZj8tFbAUJDFowV86w6vpIwMtvk ML/w== X-Received: by 10.15.49.193 with SMTP id j41mr17871381eew.10.1390227063528; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m47sm3582258eey.7.2014.01.20.06.11.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52DD2E70.90203@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:10:56 +0100 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg@ietf.org References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20140120151056940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:11:13 -0000 On 13.01.2014 19:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html for more details, including > venue information and important dates. > > Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The co-chairs will > finalize the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and will give > priority to items as follows (in this order): It is somewhat odd, but it's been a week already and we haven't received a single slot request yet. With my chair hat off, I'd like to request 20 minutes slot for the RFC3315-bis status update. Topic: RFC3315bis work Presenter: Tomek Mrugalski I-D: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00 Time: 20 minutes Tomek From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 06:17:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5021A0182 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:17:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jys8SGS8CvYp for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734C21A017D for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s0KEHOZ1021471 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:17:24 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 187CE202AE8 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:18:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07403202AB3 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:18:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s0KEHNi1012309 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:17:24 +0100 Message-ID: <52DD2FDD.5090805@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:17:01 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg@ietf.org References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52DD2E70.90203@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52DD2E70.90203@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:17:26 -0000 Le 20/01/2014 15:10, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit : > On 13.01.2014 19:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See >> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html for more details, including >> venue information and important dates. >> >> Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The co-chairs will >> finalize the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and will give >> priority to items as follows (in this order): > It is somewhat odd, but it's been a week already and we haven't received > a single slot request yet. > > With my chair hat off, I'd like to request 20 minutes slot for the > RFC3315-bis status update. > > Topic: RFC3315bis work > Presenter: Tomek Mrugalski > I-D: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00 > Time: 20 minutes YEs I agree with this request. Someone and I made some comment recently in v6ops about the contents of RFC3315, with respect to the definition of term 'prefix length' yet never used. And of course, I suppose many are curious about the advancement of this. Alex > > Tomek > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > From volz@cisco.com Mon Jan 20 06:57:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFE91A0198 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:57:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eQ19iz-CVNUM for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6A01A0197 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:57:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1763; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390229851; x=1391439451; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DclutZ0F5hDK/IgFgkESGKc872Zz7Cl1jZUt5xzDw5s=; b=cOyhdDb25+OrOoE+cbyyccIuUF3cinHYjVFxtAtlIb/cvtSzFWP4y/F7 ClXwwlXGnAB8aRFgw5USLjmUBEJ42+tcSTj23ZZ+3ZNZ08UTtMtQec/1X lt2d/siVn8XGbDnAamUhEs9ttR3uefqMbQTJep6Xa52M3Cq+HWL+wwss1 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwFAA053VKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgws4Vrs8gQ8WdIIlAQEBAwEBAQEaURcEAgEIEQQBAQEKHQcnCxQJCAEBBAESCAGHdAgNw1sXjisjMwUGgx6BFASJD4stlX6DLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,691,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="14134369" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 14:57:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0KEvUJs025142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:57:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:57:30 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: Alexandru Petrescu , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) Thread-Index: Ac8QicsdauE7TMjdQ2Oym9UwCvtTNwFke8IAAAA2Y4AAC4hEkA== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:57:30 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2AA2A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1B259@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52DD2E70.90203@gmail.com> <52DD2FDD.5090805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52DD2FDD.5090805@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.247.199] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:57:32 -0000 Yes, but RFC 3633 does and so likely we will need that definition once we m= erge the two into a single DHCPv6 specification. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:17 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London) Le 20/01/2014 15:10, Tomek Mrugalski a =E9crit : > On 13.01.2014 19:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html for more details, including=20 >> venue information and important dates. >> >> Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The co-chairs will=20 >> finalize the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and will give=20 >> priority to items as follows (in this order): > It is somewhat odd, but it's been a week already and we haven't=20 > received a single slot request yet. > > With my chair hat off, I'd like to request 20 minutes slot for the=20 > RFC3315-bis status update. > > Topic: RFC3315bis work > Presenter: Tomek Mrugalski > I-D: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00 > Time: 20 minutes YEs I agree with this request. Someone and I made some comment recently in v6ops about the contents of RFC= 3315, with respect to the definition of term 'prefix length' yet never used= . And of course, I suppose many are curious about the advancement of this. Alex > > Tomek > > _______________________________________________ > 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 akostur@incognito.com Mon Jan 20 08:37:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE961A01CB for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FlTY3kv7i7sj for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from na3sys010aog105.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog105.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 526811A01C1 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob105.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUt1Q02bu8fdUP61jxuQrxd9IAdtUQSo3@postini.com; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:39 PST Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g10so3017254vbg.28 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ehSTS2c2CIT/tQ+AXiwoYwlxAurFVEHndPef/e3NDeY=; b=UJtFXPYQ/qezbH9oSSXo5iMUhnMGl0GgMvx3K5HxzkOY2KyKLiHjYg7BQqWD7HUrYz u475fcJE2HhinOjfnbjvMGpt/NUayBkWgkYAUzRmOHN7f4n90MVQF6iOuiaJodcMjucB MattFvcmICQrSkS4Zw91shyzkItMMJhcDKVlrTjhAxxvjA0flEiZ7u0fGlXBAnW/I/Bs WoSK6d0usznLS+CSlr9NZKSflQWcj4YrnjqnC3ED8QEfFe7ifUUIrKIHeuMLp+pN4+6q 1V6nZwFGDYL+9kignBEwHCijjaaUmi9YrFBrAV1WbblamJwjBYneDHE0JkD8+TwdUZfw nIBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsHm9iFXdm4oIuGGxi2b9KFWIFzxn6iRyUMwC3+eO+KK7YbmPdPZ9fysRcwGRUQx2yEiL02eXrVAjn939Oh7Rl/A73/dCUCF/vERKFp88Skg25yqi9Lzl1ZsQM3H1Ld/Klj5KmPTdQDAh6aDfuU4H/ePb0mw== X-Received: by 10.220.193.70 with SMTP id dt6mr11091203vcb.17.1390235858510; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.193.70 with SMTP id dt6mr11091193vcb.17.1390235858336; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.204.3 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBD@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> References: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B488FBD@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:37:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andre Kostur To: Vivek Dadu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] regarding the relay agents, VPN Devices and broadcast bit X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:37:41 -0000 That's entirely up to your (VPN) device. How the rest of your IP traffic is routed is beyond the scope of DHCP. DHCP has done its job in assigning a 172.1.1.x address for the request. As for the broadcast bit.. if the request was relayed, that bit is of little consequence to the DHCP server beyond simply setting it in the returned packet. The Relay will need to pay attention to that bit though. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Vivek Dadu wrote: > Hi All > > I have a query regarding a scenario concerning option 118. Here it goes > > > > =93Say a VPN device acting as a dhcp proxy on behalf of its VPN clients h= as an > ip address 10.0.0.2 and belongs to subnet 10.0.0.0/24, however it wants t= o > assign the ip address belonging to subnet 172.1.1.0/24 to one of its VPN > clients, so it sends the subnet selection option 118 filled with the data > 172.1.1.0 and subnet mask filled with data 255.255.255.0 as a result a re= lay > agent receives it and forwards to dhcpserver, the dhcp server unicasts th= e > packet to the relay agent, now will the relay agent need a special settin= g > to tell it that packets destined to 172.1.1.0/24 subnet will be sent on > 10.0.0.0/24 interface=94 > > Also would like to know that will the broadcast bit on packet based on wh= ich > the server decides to broadcast or unicast a response packet have any imp= act > on the way relay agent processes the packet. > > > > Regards > > Vivek > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > --=20 Andre Kostur From volz@cisco.com Mon Jan 20 10:40:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811531A01E5 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LdYsn-QUeTi for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93C21A01C1 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5425; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390243218; x=1391452818; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=NahvIgPFCmR3IIoXZbtCuXE3pIldhqmFO5z1R1TNnJE=; b=hx7dsDD44uqHlkvipa2VzAVcsYwhwVqKX7BNhU913ybvSoD1rg1kUnrI owsUkLYhKqpMX8hbFFxhVFcQDR1ArdI5DrSKfsCoLKboshElu5XLPC1BE vOWj6zN+/KtA8TxUZ65ZYE/GUOC0GWlfDMIcEBTUFQUx3RJvs3CtdFXd1 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFABVt3VKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgkdEOFa7U4EQFnSCJwEELV4BKlYmAQQbh32YYqsUF45Og1yBFASqOoMtgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,691,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="298490968" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2014 18:40:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0KIeHJe011213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:40:18 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:40:17 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Request for WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 Thread-Index: Ac8WDuXqvnCvV08XSFeIoKhqMJZsEw== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.247.199] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09Cxmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] Request for WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:40:19 -0000 --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09Cxmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi: I request a WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05. There have be= en no comments since I posted it just about 3 weeks, so I assume all previo= us outstanding issues have been addressed sufficiently. Thanks. - Bernie --_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09Cxmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi:

 

I request a WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-i= ssues-05. There have been no comments since I posted it just about 3 weeks,= so I assume all previous outstanding issues have been addressed sufficient= ly.

 

Thanks.

 

-     &= nbsp;    Bernie

--_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09Cxmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Mon Jan 20 11:05:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235971A0253 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6_PzrYgWE9p for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-x22f.google.com (mail-ee0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC481A0252 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id d49so2844367eek.6 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=So1d9Lmi9cl7zhPPzN+F8JJpmJ3iE3ISbzDuuPYvgGk=; b=wobh3uP+m2P9oZ8jUQNgK/pNvD1SxxCyzPqV6t9B1TN0Zid5faTm7hItdTIaoenws1 AfnhDVvCp22MVEI2enpQcKGpBXHV6pTDk+iTHMuSZd6nhMpIWEQVJQBzoagATQt5+UJe QCEiK4kKhARri7cBo++szLweklrwB1SmqVatTeaSAYP1SLvEPvbAaW0itecGNLXu8Zk0 wE5l/F4t67ut8RwT6fn8/0mMw5FgjMvquC6pHJOuFKh1/lBpLPRWaqZl4e0REF7DQV2l 9l2qZk5AzQxYsNikpopewPwijqZoFqvm+0xl9do651T25M9yMbzjDB1yqtjYvkh8EQvu 883Q== X-Received: by 10.14.122.5 with SMTP id s5mr19270223eeh.28.1390244718147; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o47sm6109109eem.21.2014.01.20.11.05.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:05:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52DD7366.3000101@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:05:10 +0100 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20140120200510912 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Feb. 3 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:05:20 -0000 On 20.01.2014 19:40, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > I request a WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05. There have > been no comments since I posted it just about 3 weeks, so I assume all > previous outstanding issues have been addressed sufficiently. Since Bernie is co-author, I'll manage this work group last call on my own. Authors believe that stateful-issues-05 draft is ready for WG last call. Please post your comments no later than on February 3rd. This is a second WGLC for this draft. The previous one was done almost exactly a year ago (see Ted's mail from 2013-01-14). This work had a good support back then, but the changes after it were sufficiently big that another WGLC is warranted. Please keep in mind that if you want this work to be published, you must express your support. The fact that you used to support this work some time ago is not sufficient. A friendly reminder: If you have any technical improvements that you'd like to see in DHCPv6, this is a good time to mention them. The on-going 3315bis work is mostly about doing minor corrections and clarifications, so any bigger changes are more appropriate for stateful-issues. Cheers, Tomek From ian.farrer@telekom.de Tue Jan 21 01:02:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C781A0087 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:02:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.785 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybcyrLHEa61h for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709BB1A0096 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from he113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.103]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 21 Jan 2014 10:02:16 +0100 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:02:16 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:02:15 +0100 Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 Thread-Index: Ac8Wh3n/dSSoDdwAS6GL9sst0pVOnQ== Message-ID: References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:02:20 -0000 Hi Ole, Thanks for the review. Some comments on your comments below (the rest are agreed and will go into the next update). A few comments in line. Cheers, Ian > > 3. Use DHCPv6 as above for external IPv4 address and source port > configuration. Use DHCPv4 over IPv4 messages within an IPv6 > softwire for configuring additional parameters. This is referred > to as DHCPv6 + Stateless DHCPv4oSW. > >what is "as above", map-dhcp? >if so I suggest you rename this, or even better move it above under the >"simple configuration". >"stateless DHCPv4" doesn't solve the requirement you started out with for >"complex configurations". [ian] It needs to stay as a considered solution (IIRC, it was proposed as an overall solution in the Atlanta meeting). The simple configuration described in the introduction is bounded to only doing v4 address and ports, so needs to be extended to provided additional configuration. This extension is what is being described. What name would you prefer here? The current name is taken from your proposal on 7/10/13 (as a change from the previous DHCPv6+DHCPv4oSW name from v02): Rename 3. to "stateless DHCPv4" or DHCPINFORM only. ------------------------- > >add some more text in the introduction about the goals of these >mechanisms? >e.g. reuse of existing implementations, minimal change on existing >components, >implementation issues so on (oh, I see you have that in section 2) [ian] Is this a no-op? -------------------------- > >with regards to protocol stack. UDPv6 is not a protocol. just use UDP. >and I think you can remove the tunnel encapsulation from your protocol >stack, >especially since some of the softwire mechanisms use translation. >just like you don't have the L2 header on the native packets either. [ian] I think it=B9s more meaningful to go the other way and extended the stack diagrams to show where there are differences between tunnel and translation to try and give a more complete picture with all of the L3,4,5 headers. These vary between the solutions and between tunnel/translation. The L2 headers don=B9t. -------------------------- > >in section 1.4: > Broadcast based DHCPv4 > DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) can not > be transported as they are not compatible with the existing, unicast > based softwire architecture. > >I don't think this claim is correct. I don't see good reasons why DS-lite >couldn't >(or doesn't already) support broadcast. [ian] A DS-Lite may have a relay, or could be extended to be a relay, but there is nothing in the existing RFC that states that an AFTR has this function, so it can=B9t be expected. What about changing the wording to: Existing softwire architectures do not define how broadcast based DHCPv4 DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) should be handled. -------------------------- >I'm not sure this section fits in with the others. it doesn't solve the >problem of DHCPv4 leases. >either move it somewhere else or make it clear that this is the option >one can use >if the operator only requires other configuration information for IPv4. [ian] It doesn=B9t handle leases, which is what the comparison states and why it=B9s not the recommend solution in the conclusion. ---------------------------- > > >section 2: >I don't understand bullet 7. more detail? [ian] From your earlier suggestion, I=B9ve updated a paragraph in the intro to read: "Although IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire tunnel and translation clients are currently the only use-case for DHCP based configuration of IPv4 parameters in IPv6 only networks, a suitable IPv4 provisioning solution should not be limited to only supporting the configuration of softwires,=20 or be bound to specific IPv4 over IPv6 architectures or mechanisms. The solution needs to be flexible enough to support new IPv4 over IPv6 technologies as they are developed." Between this and the existing wording of requirement 7 - "Not restricted to specific IPv4 over IPv6 transport mechanisms or Architectures" I think the intension behind the requirement is pretty clear. Does that work? ---------------------------- > >3.2.1 (4) I don't think existing implementations of carrying DHCPv4 >options exist. > if anyone really really wanted to go down this route, you >could just create an DHCPv6 encapsulation option > for all DHCPv4 options. that way you don't need to port all >options. [ian] Creating a DHCPv6 encapsulation (message type & option) for transporting DHCPv4 is what DHCPv4oDHCPv6 is. > >3.2.2 it doesn't have to be tied to the DHCPv6 leasetimes (whatever >is meant by that). > IPv4 addresses could have its own IA, or be treated as such. >anyway, I'm not suggesting this route. [ian] This is the point (and what the text says). To decouple DHCPv6 prefix and IPv4 lease lifetimes, you would need to add a new, dedicated IPv4 lease lifetime mechanism to DHCPv6 (such as a v4 IA with it=B9s own timers). > > >3.3.2: I suggest you remove the unproven bullet 9. isn't that just a >matter of testing it out with an existing implementation? > with regards to bullet 8. I suggest a separate section where you >describe softwire behaviour. > _all_ proposed softwire mechanisms are hub and spoke, with >regards to traffic outside of the softwire domain. > which makes bullet 8 read a little strangely, given that no >mechanism is restricted by it. [ian] The draft not linked exclusively to softwires. A pure mesh is a possible architecture, even if no examples are currently standardised. > > >shouldn't section 3.4 be removed? given that that method is described in >section 5. > >section 3.5.2: >add a cons about communication between the DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 server, >presumably these need to be directly connected? or there must be an >DHCPv4 relay directly connected to the DHCPv6 server. _or_ is the >expectation here that the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers must be co-located on >the same host? if so, state that. > >section 5: >the title is wrong. I suggest: Transporting DHCPv4 messages over an IPv4 >capable softwire" >the tunnel is the link-layer. a link-layer that offers IPv4 transport. [ian] The rest of the doc tries not to link the v4 provisioning recommendation to only softwires, and the recommendation in the intro is not limited to using unmodified DHCPv4 only for softwires. To keep it aligned, either the intro recommendation should be changed, or the title of section 5 shouldn=B9t limit it. From vdadu@microsoft.com Mon Jan 27 09:27:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422261A0230 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DGsYpiM-zFlH for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0211.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4C91A015A for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLUPR03CA033.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.30.26) by BY2PR03MB010.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.240.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:46 +0000 Received: from BL2FFO11FD051.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::174) by BLUPR03CA033.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:879::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:45 +0000 Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD051.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.12 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:45 +0000 Received: from SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.216) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.2; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:08 +0000 Received: from SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.13]) by SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.220.216]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.002; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:05 +0000 From: Vivek Dadu To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Need info regarding the case when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by dhcp packet Thread-Index: Ac8bg0rSC79rsu3vSBq+TaOWGAaXfw== Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:04 +0000 Message-ID: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9@SINEX14MBXC417.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.92] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9SINEX14MBXC417s_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(199002)(189002)(16236675002)(74502001)(87936001)(93516002)(81816001)(47446002)(16796002)(81686001)(81342001)(85806002)(74662001)(31966008)(54356001)(79102001)(56776001)(19300405004)(93136001)(2656002)(71186001)(15975445006)(69226001)(92726001)(86362001)(81542001)(74706001)(94316002)(87266001)(512954002)(74876001)(83322001)(33656001)(44976005)(19580395003)(77096001)(6806004)(85306002)(59766001)(74366001)(77982001)(92566001)(65816001)(4396001)(47976001)(50986001)(47736001)(54316002)(49866001)(83072002)(85852003)(84326002)(76176001)(80022001)(51856001)(90146001)(56816005)(46102001)(20776003)(63696002)(53806001)(55846006)(80976001)(76786001)(76796001)(76482001)(15202345003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB010; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:BEC641DC.AEB6871B.A1F18DFB.8AD2F809.201A3; InfoDomainNonexistentA:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY) X-Forefront-PRVS: 0104247462 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Subject: [dhcwg] Need info regarding the case when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by dhcp packet X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:27:53 -0000 --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9SINEX14MBXC417s_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi RFC 3527 states that when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are re= ceived by DHCP server in a packet it shall the information contained in the= link-selection sub- option(option 82 sub-option 5) MUST be used to control= the allocation of an IP address in preference to the information contained= in the subnet-selection option(option 118) however RFC 3011 (option 118) s= ays that a DHCP proxy client using option 118 shall put its ip address in t= he GIADDR field. As a result of which the relay agent will not overwrite gi= addr and the response packet will be unicasted to DHCP proxy client. Now RF= C 3011 again says that if the server is not supporting option 118 then in t= he response packet it shall not put option 118 as a result of which the cli= ent receiving it shall drop it. So in a way I see this as a misconfigration= , can somebody throw light on how this problem can be solved. Regards Vivek --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9SINEX14MBXC417s_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

RFC 3527 states t= hat when both option 118 and option 82 sub-option 5 are received by DHCP se= rver in a packet it shall the information contained in the link-selection sub- = option(option 82 sub-option 5) MUST be used to control the allocation of an= IP address in preference to the information contained in the subnet-selection option(option 118) however RFC 3011 (opt= ion 118) says that a DHCP proxy client using option 118 shall put its ip ad= dress in the GIADDR field. As a result of which the relay agent will not ov= erwrite giaddr and the response packet will be unicasted to DHCP proxy client. Now RFC 3011 again says tha= t if the server is not supporting option 118 then in the response packet it= shall not put option 118 as a result of which the client receiving it shal= l drop it. So in a way I see this as a misconfigration, can somebody throw light on how this problem can be = solved.

Regards

Vivek

--_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B48EAC9SINEX14MBXC417s_-- From otroan@employees.org Tue Jan 28 05:01:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFEF1A01EB for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a6TdSe9M_mCt for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07D71A03A8 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAJap51KQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagwyrIJJDgRUWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsLEjRJDgYuh2IIyWUXjicBVweDJIEUBJA+mgmDLjuBLAEf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,736,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="3629986" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 13:01:09 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com [10.147.113.220]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SD18lm012117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:01:09 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_20F86A39-90C2-47A6-AF63-0F0CA2FC0097"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:01:08 +0100 Message-Id: <816DF385-6C2B-4CF9-9A4B-4B60AF3DBD15@employees.org> References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> To: "" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: DHC WG Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:01:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_20F86A39-90C2-47A6-AF63-0F0CA2FC0097 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Ian, >> with regards to protocol stack. UDPv6 is not a protocol. just use = UDP. >> and I think you can remove the tunnel encapsulation from your = protocol >> stack, >> especially since some of the softwire mechanisms use translation. >> just like you don't have the L2 header on the native packets either. >=20 > [ian] I think it=B9s more meaningful to go the other way and extended = the > stack diagrams to show where there > are differences between tunnel and translation to try and give a more > complete picture with all of the L3,4,5 headers. These vary between = the > solutions and between tunnel/translation. The L2 headers don=B9t. the tunnel is a L2. I don't think you need to include that virtual L2 in = the stack diagrams. >> in section 1.4: >> Broadcast based DHCPv4 >> DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) can not >> be transported as they are not compatible with the existing, unicast >> based softwire architecture. >>=20 >> I don't think this claim is correct. I don't see good reasons why = DS-lite >> couldn't >> (or doesn't already) support broadcast. >=20 >=20 > [ian] A DS-Lite may have a relay, or could be extended to be a relay, = but > there is nothing in the existing > RFC that states that an AFTR has this function, so it can=B9t be = expected. that's a deployment choice, and nothing that's required to be in an RFC. ds-lite is an 'normal' point to point tunnel as far as IPv4 forwarding = is concerned. > What about changing the wording to: >=20 > Existing softwire architectures do not define how broadcast based = DHCPv4 > DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) should = be > handled. I wouldn't state it so broadly. I would say that not some of the softwire mechanisms implement NBMA = links, where broadcast isn't supported, and A+P in general have open issues = with regards to using fixed ports, when the IP address is shared among multiple users. >>=20 >> section 2: >> I don't understand bullet 7. more detail? >=20 > [ian] =46rom your earlier suggestion, I=B9ve updated a paragraph in = the intro > to read: >=20 > "Although IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire tunnel and translation clients are > currently the only use-case for DHCP based configuration of IPv4 > parameters in IPv6 only networks, a suitable IPv4 provisioning > solution > should not be limited to only supporting the configuration of > softwires,=20 > or be bound to specific IPv4 over IPv6 architectures or = mechanisms. > The > solution needs to be flexible enough to support new IPv4 over = IPv6 > technologies as they are developed." >=20 >=20 > Between this and the existing wording of requirement 7 - >=20 > "Not restricted to specific IPv4 over IPv6 transport mechanisms or > Architectures" >=20 > I think the intension behind the requirement is pretty clear. Does = that > work? OK, perhaps I disagree with the intention of this then. we're creating this whole thing, just because we want the flexibility = for something that may be invented in the future? given that it is for IPv4, that seems a little unnecessary. no-one has a single example where this requirement actually matters now? > ---------------------------- >=20 >>=20 >> 3.2.1 (4) I don't think existing implementations of carrying DHCPv4 >> options exist. >> if anyone really really wanted to go down this route, you >> could just create an DHCPv6 encapsulation option >> for all DHCPv4 options. that way you don't need to port = all >> options. >=20 > [ian] Creating a DHCPv6 encapsulation (message type & option) for > transporting DHCPv4 is what DHCPv4oDHCPv6 is. you encapsulate the "messages", I said you could encapsulate the = "options". >> 3.2.2 it doesn't have to be tied to the DHCPv6 leasetimes = (whatever >> is meant by that). >> IPv4 addresses could have its own IA, or be treated as = such. >> anyway, I'm not suggesting this route. >=20 > [ian] This is the point (and what the text says). To decouple DHCPv6 > prefix and IPv4 lease lifetimes, you would need to add a new, = dedicated > IPv4 lease lifetime mechanism to DHCPv6 (such as a v4 IA with it=B9s = own > timers). OK, you may want to make that text clearer then. >>=20 >> 3.3.2: I suggest you remove the unproven bullet 9. isn't that just a >> matter of testing it out with an existing implementation? >> with regards to bullet 8. I suggest a separate section where = you >> describe softwire behaviour. >> _all_ proposed softwire mechanisms are hub and spoke, with >> regards to traffic outside of the softwire domain. >> which makes bullet 8 read a little strangely, given that no >> mechanism is restricted by it. >=20 > [ian] The draft not linked exclusively to softwires. A pure mesh is a > possible architecture, even if no examples are currently standardised. what's a pure mesh? >> shouldn't section 3.4 be removed? given that that method is described = in >> section 5. >>=20 >> section 3.5.2: >> add a cons about communication between the DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 server, >> presumably these need to be directly connected? or there must be an >> DHCPv4 relay directly connected to the DHCPv6 server. _or_ is the >> expectation here that the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers must be = co-located on >> the same host? if so, state that. >>=20 >> section 5: >> the title is wrong. I suggest: Transporting DHCPv4 messages over an = IPv4 >> capable softwire" >> the tunnel is the link-layer. a link-layer that offers IPv4 = transport. >=20 > [ian] The rest of the doc tries not to link the v4 provisioning > recommendation to only softwires, and the recommendation in the intro = is > not limited to using unmodified DHCPv4 only for softwires. To keep it > aligned, either the intro recommendation should be changed, or the = title > of section 5 shouldn=B9t limit it. I don't think there is anything in my proposal that links v4 = provisioning to a particular L2 either. it does set some requirements on the behaviour on that L2 though. again, without some real examples I think it is quite meaningless to = talk about v4 provisioning outside the context of a IPv4 capable = link-layer. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_20F86A39-90C2-47A6-AF63-0F0CA2FC0097 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS56oUAAoJEFuJXizso86gsOEH/3PFDioFDr0O80vbAvkrgTdi fgYv0S75KUjhI9NUfif5sOIQ7e21FU2TOxvMeLZ7+QB5aG9y9sV3rIjqkweKXEbb XgmQAlTGtl8N8/FOWRkaIizbuv3cDpovD4G1gGh2nrP5s+PqtbErGVfQCiqQUWdI GDfh2H7DLRseRMHyJnk08D727aUFbeqKT0Jzp9NmkwtvsJAK1z3AWJ+HNeFJ451A mjxuzhOX4ar6wP0pUqIpEXbGJQ6UQXNlqNVk3rTeFYsa5V5AQwNNEZgy8Sy6M0Dn 7oiPMMOE4+xN2nGOXIU9YazFMTGv8c6CwpdHMpVMHCQ8toy05kV+MKElEH3niME= =u4jW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_20F86A39-90C2-47A6-AF63-0F0CA2FC0097-- From volz@cisco.com Tue Jan 28 05:50:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4CD1A03E6 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:50:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQgkr0fAqVBf for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:50:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62D01A03E0 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:50:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9681; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390917005; x=1392126605; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=wq8bmop3uc/guB7ztsYl1XBuEcKoLHsZJGYsPqkukFQ=; b=T70rj93Hu5Q5CImRP80C4YeypHsNREtDzMjJRPzHbsj2a18L/IbVgiXk nkFMsSy+CwtdmtiOZVXIDTdiymAW4moOPr/1ZzF0njv97RnsChkoLURSK WCIEFCoBq2HPe725Bzk+3pKzhyswfwrl77eb/ReqEa3Tck9uFtPbSGaTE c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FACK151KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwyBDqoTkkSBFRZ0giUBAQEDAXkFBwYBCBEBAwEBCx05FAMGCQEEAQ0FCBOHYgjJZheOJwEmMQ2DHoEUBIkRiy+WB4MtgWgBHyI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,736,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300202203" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 13:50:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SDo451007106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:50:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:50:04 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "" , Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 Thread-Index: Ac8cK0xdqVm9QPxVRUOoHx4yYqtmBA== Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:50:04 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: DHC WG Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:50:12 -0000 I support this document moving forward. I do have some issues that should be addressed before advancing though. (So= rry if this may duplicate already reported issues.) The Abstract says "recommends a single approach", but aren't we technically= recommending two (i.e., DHCPv4 'as is' and DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 when IPv4 pa= ckets are not possible). It isn't clear to me that the initial part of the = abstract limits the 'single approach' to the case where IPv4 communication = is not possible? Perhaps just change "a single approach" to "approaches"? Also, the Introduction (last paragraph) says "compares four different", but= the document has 5 approaches in section 3 (Comparison of Five Approaches)= . Section 1.1 discusses 4 approaches - it seems that "DHCPv4oSW" (see 3.4) = is missing? And, these is no 1.x section for this either (should be inserte= d as new section 1.4 to match order in Section 3). Note also that section 1= .1 "At time of this writing" paragraph mentions two + two =3D 4, so that te= xt will have to be updated as well to include all 5 approaches? Section 3 is titled "Comparison of the Five Approaches" but Table 1 has onl= y 4. I guess I will just recommend that you go through the draft carefully to ma= ke sure that the text is aligned with the actual number of approaches prese= nted (or clarify when / why you eliminate an approach from further analysis= ). Please also clean up the Table of contents for section 5 as there are extra= spaces between DHCPv4 and Messages (this is probably because of how the te= xt appears in the
in the xml document). Minor nit may be to add something to section 7. (Security Considerations) t= hat this document just analyzes the various solutions and doesn't introduce= any new capabilities that have additional security considerations (or some= thing like that)? Might avoid an IESG comment about clarifying that? I still have more of the document to review ... sending this off now as I n= eed to step away for a bit. Hopefully more later today or tomorrow (also wh= at remains requires a more technical review/thought). --- One other point regarding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it woul= d be possible to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 DHCPv4 c= ontainer option to encode the various v4 options as some of the information= is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) packet. Yes, you co= uld have an option that has those fixed fields followed by a variable lengt= h option encoding area, but that seems much more complex than just encoding= the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing to do with the new DHCPv6 messages)= . Also, encoding as an option of options would also require piggybacking th= e request with DHCPv6 requests themselves which has other implications -- s= o I think that design, while possible, is much less optimum (though we can = certainly disagree on this point). - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:01 AM To: Cc: DHC WG Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by= Jan. 31 Ian, >> with regards to protocol stack. UDPv6 is not a protocol. just use UDP. >> and I think you can remove the tunnel encapsulation from your=20 >> protocol stack, especially since some of the softwire mechanisms use=20 >> translation. >> just like you don't have the L2 header on the native packets either. >=20 > [ian] I think it=B9s more meaningful to go the other way and extended=20 > the stack diagrams to show where there are differences between tunnel=20 > and translation to try and give a more complete picture with all of=20 > the L3,4,5 headers. These vary between the solutions and between=20 > tunnel/translation. The L2 headers don=B9t. the tunnel is a L2. I don't think you need to include that virtual L2 in th= e stack diagrams. >> in section 1.4: >> Broadcast based DHCPv4 >> DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment) can not=20 >> be transported as they are not compatible with the existing, unicast=20 >> based softwire architecture. >>=20 >> I don't think this claim is correct. I don't see good reasons why=20 >> DS-lite couldn't (or doesn't already) support broadcast. >=20 >=20 > [ian] A DS-Lite may have a relay, or could be extended to be a relay,=20 > but there is nothing in the existing RFC that states that an AFTR has=20 > this function, so it can=B9t be expected. that's a deployment choice, and nothing that's required to be in an RFC. ds-lite is an 'normal' point to point tunnel as far as IPv4 forwarding is c= oncerned. > What about changing the wording to: >=20 > Existing softwire architectures do not define how broadcast based=20 > DHCPv4 DHCPDISCOVER messages (necessary for IPv4 address assignment)=20 > should be handled. I wouldn't state it so broadly. I would say that not some of the softwire mechanisms implement NBMA links, = where broadcast isn't supported, and A+P in general have open issues with r= egards to using fixed ports, when the IP address is shared among multiple u= sers. >>=20 >> section 2: >> I don't understand bullet 7. more detail? >=20 > [ian] From your earlier suggestion, I=B9ve updated a paragraph in the=20 > intro to read: >=20 > "Although IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire tunnel and translation clients are > currently the only use-case for DHCP based configuration of IPv4 > parameters in IPv6 only networks, a suitable IPv4 provisioning=20 > solution > should not be limited to only supporting the configuration of=20 > softwires, > or be bound to specific IPv4 over IPv6 architectures or mechanisms. > The > solution needs to be flexible enough to support new IPv4 over IPv6 > technologies as they are developed." >=20 >=20 > Between this and the existing wording of requirement 7 - >=20 > "Not restricted to specific IPv4 over IPv6 transport mechanisms or > Architectures" >=20 > I think the intension behind the requirement is pretty clear. Does=20 > that work? OK, perhaps I disagree with the intention of this then. we're creating this whole thing, just because we want the flexibility for s= omething that may be invented in the future? given that it is for IPv4, that seems a little unnecessary. no-one has a single example where this requirement actually matters now? > ---------------------------- >=20 >>=20 >> 3.2.1 (4) I don't think existing implementations of carrying DHCPv4=20 >> options exist. >> if anyone really really wanted to go down this route, you=20 >> could just create an DHCPv6 encapsulation option >> for all DHCPv4 options. that way you don't need to port=20 >> all options. >=20 > [ian] Creating a DHCPv6 encapsulation (message type & option) for=20 > transporting DHCPv4 is what DHCPv4oDHCPv6 is. you encapsulate the "messages", I said you could encapsulate the "options". >> 3.2.2 it doesn't have to be tied to the DHCPv6 leasetimes (whatever >> is meant by that). >> IPv4 addresses could have its own IA, or be treated as such. >> anyway, I'm not suggesting this route. >=20 > [ian] This is the point (and what the text says). To decouple DHCPv6=20 > prefix and IPv4 lease lifetimes, you would need to add a new,=20 > dedicated > IPv4 lease lifetime mechanism to DHCPv6 (such as a v4 IA with it=B9s own= =20 > timers). OK, you may want to make that text clearer then. >>=20 >> 3.3.2: I suggest you remove the unproven bullet 9. isn't that just a=20 >> matter of testing it out with an existing implementation? >> with regards to bullet 8. I suggest a separate section where=20 >> you describe softwire behaviour. >> _all_ proposed softwire mechanisms are hub and spoke, with=20 >> regards to traffic outside of the softwire domain. >> which makes bullet 8 read a little strangely, given that no=20 >> mechanism is restricted by it. >=20 > [ian] The draft not linked exclusively to softwires. A pure mesh is a=20 > possible architecture, even if no examples are currently standardised. what's a pure mesh? >> shouldn't section 3.4 be removed? given that that method is described=20 >> in section 5. >>=20 >> section 3.5.2: >> add a cons about communication between the DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 server,=20 >> presumably these need to be directly connected? or there must be an >> DHCPv4 relay directly connected to the DHCPv6 server. _or_ is the=20 >> expectation here that the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers must be=20 >> co-located on the same host? if so, state that. >>=20 >> section 5: >> the title is wrong. I suggest: Transporting DHCPv4 messages over an=20 >> IPv4 capable softwire" >> the tunnel is the link-layer. a link-layer that offers IPv4 transport. >=20 > [ian] The rest of the doc tries not to link the v4 provisioning=20 > recommendation to only softwires, and the recommendation in the intro=20 > is not limited to using unmodified DHCPv4 only for softwires. To keep=20 > it aligned, either the intro recommendation should be changed, or the=20 > title of section 5 shouldn=B9t limit it. I don't think there is anything in my proposal that links v4 provisioning t= o a particular L2 either. it does set some requirements on the behaviour on that L2 though. again, without some real examples I think it is quite meaningless to talk a= bout v4 provisioning outside the context of a IPv4 capable link-layer. cheers, Ole From otroan@employees.org Tue Jan 28 05:56:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A611A03F9 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:56:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bt0N-ESf6XKc for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:56:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB571A03F6 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,736,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="3633018" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 13:56:14 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com [10.147.113.220]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SDuDvD029356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:56:14 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83477F95-409A-49E9-A9D7-C1E2F844AA88"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:56:12 +0100 Message-Id: <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: DHC WG Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:56:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_83477F95-409A-49E9-A9D7-C1E2F844AA88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > One other point regarding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it = would be possible to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 = DHCPv4 container option to encode the various v4 options as some of the = information is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) = packet. Yes, you could have an option that has those fixed fields = followed by a variable length option encoding area, but that seems much = more complex than just encoding the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing = to do with the new DHCPv6 messages). Also, encoding as an option of = options would also require piggybacking the request with DHCPv6 requests = themselves which has other implications -- so I think that design, while = possible, is much less optimum (though we can certainly disagree on this = point). just to make it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impression = that I'm in favour of this mode. I'm not. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_83477F95-409A-49E9-A9D7-C1E2F844AA88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS57b8AAoJEFuJXizso86ghjEIAIU7mbEqNr58kKe7WrckU7hA nCZ7D6E7J6yuV+jCroByWKvlgzVKC5uAGf2Xxumf6M0crAlG/3ScrWyo4I1oDvmh Tdvg1ODBEidOTUVDlbbaWcuSooXhoz64EnpUcjXoOcDpEicLFSxRwJxfEOWuXXSA bl8c5wkR2MkoSwTTnec0g57w299xrlejTpKamgwq6etVhXXxoV/iGeP2HD5M9C1w UXQ2S1mk7llhl6tKbUHoyWC0J4b0rtEUXtWZJMVSnkKD57Mppg1rdfZE90C9vtl7 5TbFeAZ/pAdKSwhZ3jIO6NM2lLf319OoZG0C6Kg4h1GkycLC4WvOwhvymPMg7hc= =wGFS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_83477F95-409A-49E9-A9D7-C1E2F844AA88-- From volz@cisco.com Tue Jan 28 05:57:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE6C1A03F5 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YcTp-KdhANB0 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769C91A022A for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:57:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1749; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390917444; x=1392127044; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8GXUabKPvAyD3y0lPo0U8pxIIgcjgsZU5Rqajv7O8Os=; b=PeiIE/ekla4m2IWR/ip/W1UEnXkRwOU2Kk8nvsyXSXaiXGjEN67Sbs1+ DHa+Zu4Lbo393yxpdc8rYOzEWu1QSc+BObguu9EHeckN253SJLyprQ5ye ly6579meElzl+0SCOuvr6q/otldbNAKf0K8XzcAlQb/8mmggXLZlmuynv k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,736,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="16085978" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 13:57:24 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SDvOkp017106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:57:24 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:57:23 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Feb. 3 Thread-Index: AQHPFhKQmFARcWFt40mw1KIZeYPW5JqaNTCA Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:57:23 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD4A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52DD7366.3000101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52DD7366.3000101@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Feb. 3 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:57:29 -0000 Hi: I (obviously) support this document moving forward. As there have been NO other comments about this document, PLEASE do review = it and express your support (or provide comments as to issues that need to = be resolved). - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Tomek Mrugalski [mailto:tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:05 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); Ole Tr=F8an Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Feb.= 3 On 20.01.2014 19:40, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > I request a WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05. There=20 > have been no comments since I posted it just about 3 weeks, so I=20 > assume all previous outstanding issues have been addressed sufficiently. Since Bernie is co-author, I'll manage this work group last call on my own.= Authors believe that stateful-issues-05 draft is ready for WG last call. P= lease post your comments no later than on February 3rd. This is a second WGLC for this draft. The previous one was done almost exac= tly a year ago (see Ted's mail from 2013-01-14). This work had a good suppo= rt back then, but the changes after it were sufficiently big that another W= GLC is warranted. Please keep in mind that if you want this work to be published, you must ex= press your support. The fact that you used to support this work some time a= go is not sufficient. A friendly reminder: If you have any technical improvements that you'd like= to see in DHCPv6, this is a good time to mention them. The on-going 3315bi= s work is mostly about doing minor corrections and clarifications, so any b= igger changes are more appropriate for stateful-issues. Cheers, Tomek From rmohanr@cisco.com Thu Jan 23 09:08:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53731A006C for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:08:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zd6nEK5jUhK6 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:08:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E591C1A00A1 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:08:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=979; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390496912; x=1391706512; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YWrOZ+x0I4jUE+HE0NYaIpxsx6qAn0DQMLZlWqxREBM=; b=EKL0zhaynLGGeZDeiAj7dNvXVlgr1t8QbPhJVnnNrABW4rbGbvYhyy6o W5TX/ZngmYJnQYUPmMAAGoI7RtGrCnPWaqW4xr+/qF0wOuCbUiNu64IIh epWOmmkRfzIeVidz4AP2AsGbSYrOSo0KHxgWW6BNpgvN76Hur4j5LYCUP 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAExL4VKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgww4Vrt5gREWdIIlAQIEHR1RAQgRAwECH0IdCAEBBBOIBQ2aVqsnF44vAQFWhDgEmCOBMpBmgW+BPoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,706,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="299253792" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2014 17:08:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0NH8W3J006560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:08:32 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.32]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:08:31 -0600 From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8UP/K7F818VTfBQkCwBI2rNSurAAAAOUyQAR9SN4A= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:08:30 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428CF5E@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [10.65.70.19] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:37:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:08:35 -0000 I support adoption of this draft Regards, Ram > >From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" >Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42 PM >To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" >Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - >respond by Jan 27, 2014 > >Hi all: >=20 >A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to >determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt >draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether >or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you >are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. >This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. >=20 >The HTML version of the document can be viewed at >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. >=20 >If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted >to get it on the charter. >=20 >Regards, >Tomek & Bernie >=20 From volz@cisco.com Tue Jan 28 10:17:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2477B1A02E8 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-NO99Fk1m4Z for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5ED1A0240 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3639; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390933059; x=1392142659; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qlUwh4JFzBU5ZEB2n7E4YGgw3TOfdPUKAVmFao/dAGQ=; b=ctxMwRNnkUUNPI9GLra9/uSdsCx5W133tDLj0F8uh++erK4BgM7dlPXH /iVIM7clGzjEdUJtlJ33TkHsah32HU2a9DMx+0UYHY3erFEiEzVTyx/Av WaRVQPHgxtn0N3q+LJY0m8/jrkqqwwmuKJ1PhT71ci3yykvOfxoJ80D0W w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FADzz51KtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagww4VrxegREWdIIlAQEBBAEBARoKRxcEAgEIEQQBAQsdBycLFAkIAQEEARIIh30NyWcXji4BAR44BoMegRQEiRGQSZBtgW+BPoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,737,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300069417" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 18:17:38 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SIHcNV000607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:17:38 -0600 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: Simon Perreault , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 Thread-Index: Ac8QcQDsRAhiIYjCTp6frUYpiNZ3DQANxxuAAAvHSGAC33vhkA== Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:36 +0000 Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3B9A4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1AE39@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1AE39@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.237] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:43 -0000 Oops ... I realize I never indicated my support of this document for adopti= on. I do support its adoption. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:10 AM To: Simon Perreault; dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 -= respond by Jan 27, 2014 Hi: Once adopted, we can request changes. I too think it would be better to just provide information about the curren= t state of a host's addresses rather than report transition states (transit= ions would trigger a Reconfigure-request). If there is a good reason for re= porting state changes, perhaps both should be reported (i.e., flags and sta= te change - or old vs new state)? That way the server can use either set to= do its processing? Also, as mentioned in the document, the option should be allowed to be sent= by the host directly (though of course, it will be far quicker to get this= rolled out if the relay agents are modified rather than all hosts). - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:41 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 -= respond by Jan 27, 2014 In favour. I commented on earlier revisions. Comments for future revisions: - First, I think it would be better protocol design to make OPTION_HOST_CON= NECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would be represented by = bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits would be reserved for = future use. - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report *transitions*? = Isn't it better to make the relay report the current state only, and let th= e DHCP server figure out the transition based on the previous state? - Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state of = a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from "no sta= ck" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with this easily= , whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of messages I suppo= se. Simon Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a =E9crit : > Hi all: > > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors=20 > to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state=20 > whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this=20 > mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your = response. > This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. > > The HTML version of the document can be viewed at=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02. > > If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with=20 > Ted to get it on the charter. > > Regards, > > Tomek & Bernie > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ 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 tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 15:28:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9E01A03F9 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id laLJ3SSC-w0c for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-x232.google.com (mail-ea0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65C61A03B7 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a15so1265606eae.37 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pw7LAEhDWzR3Cdk4VJuSzN/lbQebsAmciB8869xdLYA=; b=pX9Vlg+aYJS8Dqra/L3BkXv5koDEiDdokRl1QX34cLCB4pw/bkYI1ZVoG4Hu9WUxCv UhOqEKTwLXgdV1tg0d708BYJjpmIJHIt+MzrPIh4BojCs9zzL53vyURh+0Xpi2sIqwI8 CAvfwYxVSQ1TaGK8IdUsQpsW8rHUB6wtcqiWtChLKf5uHVn2Rv8vgUm/0n5vIHcTWOw3 ucpl+C/fhq5CE9gtWO5GRM2UmM+JIan0ZBiuK8L2zoWquW9iv8LTR5rKikE2a/OGbiHr jhJgyq8d1abCP5wvuhMxPpZrkTAn61DzbwWWRZzd4C32urrZ/yirehBY+h5ulZXmJYSw 5wPQ== X-Received: by 10.15.26.8 with SMTP id m8mr12956340eeu.25.1391038133356; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from thomson-osx.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w4sm15002270eef.20.2014.01.29.15.28.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E98EB2.7030702@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:28:50 +0100 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:28:58 -0000 On 13.01.2014, 16:12, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to > determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether > or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you > are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. > This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. Uh oh. This one slipped a bit. With my chair hat off, I support adoption of this draft. Tomek From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Wed Jan 29 15:47:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8481A03D6 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5TQpgfLwMggs for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-x22f.google.com (mail-ee0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEF91A03B7 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id d49so1243061eek.34 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MZO0JPmNXBDoOkv1KK6+FIOK7Y/E+ezG1q5/i+/Xc44=; b=LbrPi0C7NJkjz5S8knqxaTulOoCuwiQXLoj6DPdQXi2s/Qmnfad57N0xeT7FRli9xc aSUi7+4vaJXacrDdXaAHCJXY12LAzX8zuLbm9GA82E+cqUqBZDCZwxreQzk8HZF5HQCz TOk2DjrAKdzjFHnn9nmEy5yMeMr7/1yUhvD/uKBL5ziKWhYWc1tWDD+D2eNxmfZQpApE t3/G/a1CY/6Be3DQWdq+IxKdm2BbV2FBFonSBNlcXJ3Ol927hebm8LJ3e3YI2SuL7Iuu TIZLoal6KMAqdnGtxLzIIFLyiH46Llw0tZV5WeuSz9TiRvJcY4iezT7wafUAcPTrZPrV RIeQ== X-Received: by 10.15.42.136 with SMTP id u8mr7287831eev.52.1391039242092; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from thomson-osx.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d43sm15097078eep.18.2014.01.29.15.47.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:47:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E99307.3040002@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:47:19 +0100 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call Summary (adopted) - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:47:27 -0000 On 13.01.2014, 16:12, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to > determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt > draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether > or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you > are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. > This adoption call will complete on January 27, 2014. As Bernie is away for couple days, I'm assessing consensus on my own. The response for this adoption call was somewhat underwhelming. Nevertheless, the feedback was strongly supportive and nobody opposed this work. This draft was presented twice: in joint DHC/Sunset4 meeting in Berlin and during DHC meeting in Vancouver. During each presentation the room seemed interested and was generally in favor, although there were technical comments. Based on those facts I consider this adoption call to be successful. Authors, please upload this draft as WG item. This draft evolved a bit since its inception. It is no longer solely about DNS reconfigure only. I think its current name "DHCPv6 Dynamic Reconfiguration" is not the best one as dynamic is duplicated (D in DHCPv6 stands for dynamic). Perhaps "Connectivity Status Notifications for DHCPv6" would be a better name? This is only a suggestion. Feel free to invent a more appropriate name for this work. Tomek From vdadu@microsoft.com Thu Jan 30 01:05:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4D41A0504 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:05:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id To1BpfiRH5Mc for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0158.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83761A04FD for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:05:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from BY2PR03CA032.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.234.153) by BY2PR03MB253.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.37.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.859.15; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:05:01 +0000 Received: from BN1AFFO11FD014.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::150) by BY2PR03CA032.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:2c2c::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.859.15 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:05:01 +0000 Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1AFFO11FD014.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.856.14 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:04:59 +0000 Received: from SINEX14HUBC501.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.68) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.2; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:04:34 +0000 Received: from SINEX14MBXC419.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.88]) by SINEX14HUBC501.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::58dd:5b00:bb08:9b24%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.002; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:04:30 +0000 From: Vivek Dadu To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Need some info regarding the subnet slection options and sub-option Thread-Index: Ac8dmRKNObnaxunvQZ+IJ0UispvTFw== Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9E@SINEX14MBXC419.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.95] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9ESINEX14MBXC419s_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(53754006)(189002)(199002)(87936001)(80022001)(15202345003)(56816005)(81542001)(74502001)(86362001)(93516002)(65816001)(80976001)(63696002)(20776003)(90146001)(74876001)(512954002)(2656002)(81816001)(74662001)(31966008)(16796002)(81342001)(16236675002)(15975445006)(47446002)(69226001)(94316002)(54316002)(81686001)(71186001)(87266001)(74706001)(19300405004)(76482001)(77982001)(76176001)(92726001)(93136001)(83322001)(19580395003)(59766001)(54356001)(53806001)(85306002)(74366001)(33656001)(79102001)(55846006)(44976005)(77096001)(56776001)(76786001)(47976001)(92566001)(84326002)(46102001)(85852003)(83072002)(49866001)(51856001)(6806004)(76796001)(47736001)(50986001)(94946001)(4396001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB253; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; InfoDomainNonexistentMX:1; A:1; LANG:en; X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY) X-Forefront-PRVS: 0107098B6C X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Subject: [dhcwg] Need some info regarding the subnet slection options and sub-option X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:05:08 -0000 --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9ESINEX14MBXC419s_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All As per the subnet selection option (option id 118, RFC 3011) and subnet sel= ection sub-option (Option 82 sub-option 5, RFC 3527) the DHCP proxy client = shall send a DHCP packet filled with respective option or sub-option when t= hey want to specify to the DHCP server that which subnet they want the ip a= ddress for, however in case of renew and rebind packets ip address assignme= nt is a non-issue, hence I would like to understand that do popular client= \relay agent implementations take that path or they use option 118 and sub-= option 5 respectively in every message they send(event renew and rebind). Regards Vivek --_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9ESINEX14MBXC419s_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All

As per the subnet selection option (option id 118, R= FC 3011) and subnet selection sub-option (Option 82 sub-option 5, RFC 3527)= the DHCP proxy client shall send a DHCP packet filled with respective opti= on or sub-option when they want to specify to the DHCP server that which subnet they want the ip address for,= however in case of renew and rebind packets ip address assignment is a non= -issue, hence I would like to understand that do  popular client\relay= agent implementations take that path or they use option 118 and sub-option 5 respectively in every message they= send(event renew and rebind).

Regards

Vivek

--_000_2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9ESINEX14MBXC419s_-- From akostur@incognito.com Thu Jan 30 09:03:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A011A0419 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxAuJUE0l3Tp for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from na3sys010aog106.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog106.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E4D41A0417 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob106.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUuqF6afTmjXSNczKZcxeCsTrlK52fyKw@postini.com; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:38 PST Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id cz12so2436748veb.1 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=t850coXVEgNIKQO4xKqkK44INwqqG5qtU87UpI4W+bo=; b=QJ7g3Ko/hssV/fi25R5VOYVGJakGhMNGB4rru024q7xYCIEuLa/j/SgrRddMlQn1yG c7yp9P5CoktU/dnpbo1H8nHEfqjUzfF5mDmzk+tJ8MrozQYdQwyfJGuVkyvLRASJzhKy R1/fnYqgky5PcAlHrh0r7QOAVKOvl4hL14bkXQuoKlzjSV/qARkbkoNol9rL9bMHysdK DKMxdO1jcC2Lrx8nL7LN/ZICnY3ozroCe4CypU4dsF8H6yMTm7H+AiPS+BSiJQ+GMr/e TLYnnRVWQ3FdTBRyjZs4P+LAcvy4PnLcXk1k22SOQ7qthaJHxEH6wRvqe/WbPXhUd4kn YANw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1C8ej4B0xjJydo0xBGpAP310eB3mL6U/mLnLTD16wmIqPMHZ+fhKhZ/LnsU6dbKJWI3DGSRNV0Jc1HB7Rd38IwLAjmvYJWehKEGn0FURyPW30JFY5Iw3ja39VCnMAYZF4cs0Bhp9+AKY0CbWk8Zz/JwvPHQ== X-Received: by 10.58.209.36 with SMTP id mj4mr88296vec.47.1391101417047; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.209.36 with SMTP id mj4mr88289vec.47.1391101416930; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.16.138 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9E@SINEX14MBXC419.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> References: <2D833948ADBB574BAB0A4AD8CF32A8991B4A2C9E@SINEX14MBXC419.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:03:36 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andre Kostur To: Vivek Dadu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Need some info regarding the subnet slection options and sub-option X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:03:43 -0000 > As per the subnet selection option (option id 118, RFC 3011) and subnet > selection sub-option (Option 82 sub-option 5, RFC 3527) the DHCP proxy > client shall send a DHCP packet filled with respective option or sub-option > when they want to specify to the DHCP server that which subnet they want the > ip address for, however in case of renew and rebind packets ip address > assignment is a non-issue, hence I would like to understand that do popular > client\relay agent implementations take that path or they use option 118 and > sub-option 5 respectively in every message they send(event renew and > rebind). My $0.02. If we're talking about a proxy client, I would expect it to send option 118 in every packet. Otherwise the renews may show up at the DHCP server and the server would see that the Request is coming from a network that does not make sense for the CIADDR and may potentially NAK the client to force it to switch to the appropriate network. Option 82.5 is really for an intervening DHCP Relay Agent to make the subnet decision. From branimir.rajtar.ietf@gmail.com Thu Jan 30 09:59:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3CB1A0417 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZPHobaBw-jO for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2111A03E0 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so6820210wgh.31 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=k2a2oKJ6s1hxMFG854DC9FkxxRYusFqFrvyW7cXrlyA=; b=jhbd5g/oTZbUgBaS+Ofaf8vWY+hQCTqXVB1I0JXPiJN5AO7ymDX932E4lB2ensNTlE 6+tcTJ4tDeVoK/wc6AApj1ZdJWW8x9YIzycJMBdBwUn2CBHqfzZM4hql3ddb5w5b5U08 5BBYluiAXjXSBm2iE2P+wTEaUQWOTqNpa2rQ492V847ksdKruwJ6eRe9QkvsDhmo7/8k kbYgnTvbX3wTmUD038BEzUrOrXYQDFsvEs2y0i5eWGFiVkSy9WrNxu3UCtmlw+PLhm+X /6EPe5pKIVT6MB/FkDMkfJ30X3c5nwCzpNW5JaBjFYcJWV8N2Llm6Wd49pk79Ula0irT /8eA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.105.41 with SMTP id gj9mr24257999wib.28.1391104777870; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.137.206 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:59:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: Branimir Rajtar To: Ole Troan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442826221643704f133d241 Cc: DHC WG , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:43 -0000 --f46d0442826221643704f133d241 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just to make sure it's clear - I support this document going forward. Branimir On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > > One other point regarding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it > would be possible to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 > DHCPv4 container option to encode the various v4 options as some of the > information is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) packet. > Yes, you could have an option that has those fixed fields followed by a > variable length option encoding area, but that seems much more complex than > just encoding the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing to do with the new > DHCPv6 messages). Also, encoding as an option of options would also require > piggybacking the request with DHCPv6 requests themselves which has other > implications -- so I think that design, while possible, is much less > optimum (though we can certainly disagree on this point). > > just to make it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impression > that I'm in favour of this mode. I'm not. > > cheers, > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > --f46d0442826221643704f133d241 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just to make sure it's clear - I support this document= going forward.

Branimir


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, = Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> One other point regar= ding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it would be possible= to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 DHCPv4 container opti= on to encode the various v4 options as some of the information is conveyed = in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) packet. Yes, you could have an o= ption that has those fixed fields followed by a variable length option enco= ding area, but that seems much more complex than just encoding the DHCPv4 p= acket (as we are proposing to do with the new DHCPv6 messages). Also, encod= ing as an option of options would also require piggybacking the request wit= h DHCPv6 requests themselves which has other implications -- so I think tha= t design, while possible, is much less optimum (though we can certainly dis= agree on this point).

just to make it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impressio= n that I'm in favour of this mode. I'm not.

cheers,
Ole

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


--f46d0442826221643704f133d241-- From msiodelski@gmail.com Fri Jan 31 01:31:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09DE1A03F3 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQpS9jo5pobX for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476071A0388 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c11so3249880lbj.17 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7e0h6rEhbmfl1pK80dSl4L0HRf8zLKjVziXuVPLDkHA=; b=abCpkTlDJ3nMvdJl1BcpT7QyIeBzqqNGnhYqFciJPETUHvW2XQGvEM3cQL3uvPIaHB /SoEFLq0bJU1kPD7v/qQ7vo0O4XYyURFl4PHNEuRghUq3MGtM9rzAL9z88tMkMJO6cKf bW5JjdkD1+1pdbhjBEZjuclNpuO+H3ryEePOeXbSgPAwuRqxGSBI+5IEScjMJHSn3AiR nCBA0yjKPVdMtqd/Hc4kD+T6vGka4di2X8ldv7LBnvnlgFa0pbFFLpOsfhTdULF+a+0R EOn3B2KJu9UgeRE583dfYMurMkZgUA2Hu1nAk63Xwh5jqUJrACYxxkFcErm2pS+9/2OC kj2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.153.5.136 with SMTP id cm8mr38497lad.82.1391160709044; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.62.166 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:31:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD4A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE2B09C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52DD7366.3000101@gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD4A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:31:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: Marcin Siodelski To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Feb. 3 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:31:55 -0000 I have read this document and I strongly support it move forward. One nit I have is this: Note: A server SHOULD NOT provide additional bindings to the client as the client could accept a Reply from a different server (this is the same issue as in the Discussion under the Rapid Commit option, see section 22.14 I suggest adding "of [RFC3315]" at the end of this paragraph. Marcin On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > Hi: > > I (obviously) support this document moving forward. > > As there have been NO other comments about this document, PLEASE do revie= w it and express your support (or provide comments as to issues that need t= o be resolved). > > - Bernie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tomek Mrugalski [mailto:tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:05 PM > To: dhcwg@ietf.org > Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); Ole Tr=F8an > Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05 - respond by Fe= b. 3 > > On 20.01.2014 19:40, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> I request a WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05. There >> have been no comments since I posted it just about 3 weeks, so I >> assume all previous outstanding issues have been addressed sufficiently. > > Since Bernie is co-author, I'll manage this work group last call on my ow= n. Authors believe that stateful-issues-05 draft is ready for WG last call.= Please post your comments no later than on February 3rd. > > This is a second WGLC for this draft. The previous one was done almost ex= actly a year ago (see Ted's mail from 2013-01-14). This work had a good sup= port back then, but the changes after it were sufficiently big that another= WGLC is warranted. > > Please keep in mind that if you want this work to be published, you must = express your support. The fact that you used to support this work some time= ago is not sufficient. > > A friendly reminder: If you have any technical improvements that you'd li= ke to see in DHCPv6, this is a good time to mention them. The on-going 3315= bis work is mostly about doing minor corrections and clarifications, so any= bigger changes are more appropriate for stateful-issues. > > Cheers, > Tomek > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From ian.farrer@telekom.de Fri Jan 31 02:22:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75BB1A041B for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.784 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXvm4bb86Btd for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0511A049B for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jan 2014 11:22:28 +0100 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([169.254.3.20]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:22:28 +0100 From: To: , Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:22:25 +0100 Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 Thread-Index: Ac8d5RCSgcLH78CmTNGFBBg4K4xmdgAiRmxA Message-ID: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418HE111643EMEA1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, volz@cisco.com Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:22:36 -0000 --_000_8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1, with the remaining open comments resolved. Ian From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Branimir Rajtar Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2014 19:00 To: Ole Troan Cc: DHC WG; Bernie Volz (volz) Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by= Jan. 31 Just to make sure it's clear - I support this document going forward. Branimir On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ole Troan > wrote: > One other point regarding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it wo= uld be possible to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 DHCPv4= container option to encode the various v4 options as some of the informati= on is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) packet. Yes, you = could have an option that has those fixed fields followed by a variable len= gth option encoding area, but that seems much more complex than just encodi= ng the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing to do with the new DHCPv6 message= s). Also, encoding as an option of options would also require piggybacking = the request with DHCPv6 requests themselves which has other implications --= so I think that design, while possible, is much less optimum (though we ca= n certainly disagree on this point). just to make it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impression that= I'm in favour of this mode. I'm not. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg --_000_8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1, with the remaining open comments resolved.

 

Ian

 

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Branimir Rajtar
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Januar 201= 4 19:00
To: Ole Troan
Cc: DHC WG; Bernie Volz (volz)Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - re= spond by Jan. 31

 = ;

Just to make sure it's clear - I suppo= rt this document going forward.

 

Branimir

&nb= sp;

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ole= Troan <otroan= @employees.org> wrote:

> One other point regarding Ole's comments bel= ow - Ole, I don't think it would be possible to handle IPv4 configuration b= y just adding a DHCPv6 DHCPv4 container option to encode the various v4 opt= ions as some of the information is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHC= Pv4 (BOOTP) packet. Yes, you could have an option that has those fixed fiel= ds followed by a variable length option encoding area, but that seems much = more complex than just encoding the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing to d= o with the new DHCPv6 messages). Also, encoding as an option of options wou= ld also require piggybacking the request with DHCPv6 requests themselves wh= ich has other implications -- so I think that design, while possible, is mu= ch less optimum (though we can certainly disagree on this point).

just to make= it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impression that I'm in favo= ur of this mode. I'm not.

cheers,
Ole

____________________= ___________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcw= g

 

<= /div>= --_000_8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418HE111643EMEA1_-- From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Fri Jan 31 04:48:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6CC1A057F for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxpH61UP3IFT for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86A51A057C for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id un15so4376349pbc.32 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UBZMu843+tUnTOrYQ7okfkH8zEz8qOq2KJ+wUInBwNk=; b=FjVaR3PRaEeFhbLVaVT/Yix4K8ZU2vF5AjW6Qv7NhB6ZWBofEgJolSaIdjER+wNNne pCIZB34E/ILEsF4rjyi6EqS/TZoQS3xsvX/MweZzIrSgB7ucQraKJrcto576hKizKvON DsaMfBUBwynMTFvgowzgSGT4QL2C7HAtfR4x6kjIXDb7ikuSSw9Vm+KaYCQ8pxkWmEu4 1AlkAaxrQQs2FB7murBfkaKDRA0si3UuG/mY1ogPVVcNTTtaiKum9eewOCFUZXNU3+Tu mDkM+5kn3EoXyiIDLwMyEWY9RjcGNqakUTHsKeYucLvykK2BPFaDCEk6ho1/J6aZV+86 5scg== X-Received: by 10.66.163.2 with SMTP id ye2mr20402447pab.110.1391172498363; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.109] ([27.213.251.185]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cz3sm27356310pbc.9.2014.01.31.04.48.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:48:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:48:17 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com> References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> To: DHC WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:48:23 -0000 Dear all, I support this document to move forward. Best Regards, Qi=20 On 2014-1-18, at =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=885:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: > Folks, >=20 > Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is > ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January. >=20 > If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object > this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit > your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. = "I > like the other solution better" is not a technical comment. >=20 > Please note that: > - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure > IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question. >=20 > - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must = not > do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one = issue > at a time. >=20 > - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list > discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native = DHCPv4 > without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends: > DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6". >=20 > With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not > reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in > scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would = prove > whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us = nowhere. > There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every > possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much > more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time = to > wrap things up here and move on. >=20 > Bernie & Tomek >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From gnocuil@gmail.com Fri Jan 31 06:13:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D084A1A1F54 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:13:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7BF2ucBbqq_z for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89471A0193 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c9so7166017qcz.31 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c3fd5nejj0N90esdN4jSBMMeEkTSMmOih8JevJqtloI=; b=nd0yMqs4EQl9HdXvidV9zzOs5pMgOW+HzxwF9hZKJdvB22sPpjPWh9qhP0KOy9CLHA gMWos0KTbrQvMaeWTiVI5gD8fCECJFYvLnQ04ySbGn8i0V42zyTxW6dh8sRqEKXNa0sE jw2CPG7vQjLpPm2yUoi8HeBlW/OlKQGlFJxDW+Ng4wNoeCjRJO6g80T/uO3OZj4/YNeh hvgGslEo0l4z8cpvyqKV3MOpyz6H8hclXwGxC6U0yMrkXQJoNoNtlj1jWH18IGxqhv/N 9DJqbVwKVl3pXqY/imzeJxQLKpFrblhZPfHgSQ8bABCpoZgwWSEoReL5yV5HyqmazgPF CDsQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.27.179 with SMTP id 48mr29881738qgx.18.1391177574550; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.218.104 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.218.104 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com> References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:12:54 +0800 Message-ID: From: Cong Liu To: Qi Sun Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c004342692c504f144c53f Cc: DHC WG Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0000 --001a11c004342692c504f144c53f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 support. Cong 2014=C4=EA1=D4=C231=C8=D5 =CF=C2=CE=E78:48=D3=DA "Qi Sun" =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA > > Dear all, > > I support this document to move forward. > > > Best Regards, > Qi > > > On 2014-1-18, at =C9=CF=CE=E75:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 > > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is > > ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January. > > > > If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object > > this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit > > your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I > > like the other solution better" is not a technical comment. > > > > Please note that: > > - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure > > IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question. > > > > - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must no= t > > do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issu= e > > at a time. > > > > - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list > > discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv= 4 > > without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends: > > DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6". > > > > With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not > > reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in > > scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prov= e > > whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere. > > There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every > > possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much > > more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time t= o > > wrap things up here and move on. > > > > Bernie & Tomek > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --001a11c004342692c504f144c53f Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 support.

Cong

2014=C4=EA1=D4=C231=C8=D5 =CF=C2=CE=E78:48=D3=DA= "Qi Sun" <sunqi.= csnet.thu@gmail.com>=D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA

Dear all,

I support this document to move forward.


Best Regards,
Qi


On 2014-1-18, at =C9=CF=CE=E75:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4c= onfiguration/) is
> ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.
>
> If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object=
> this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit<= br> > your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. &= quot;I
> like the other solution better" is not a technical comment.
>
> Please note that:
> - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure<= br> > IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question. >
> - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must n= ot
> do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one= issue
> at a time.
>
> - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list
> discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native= DHCPv4
> without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends:
> DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6".
>
> With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to = not
> reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in<= br> > scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would pro= ve
> whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere= .
> There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every > possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much<= br> > more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high t= ime to
> wrap things up here and move on.
>
> Bernie & Tomek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--001a11c004342692c504f144c53f-- From Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de Fri Jan 31 06:17:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AD91A0280 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:17:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eHV1EDpJIPUu for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497361A0270 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from he113598.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.117]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jan 2014 15:17:33 +0100 Received: from HE113605.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.1.99]) by HE113598.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:17:32 +0100 From: To: Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:17:32 +0100 Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 Thread-Index: Ac8ejo//m6w88ebuRjWhRwuEseOkGAAAFwcg Message-ID: References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDDF699211DACHE113605emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:17:42 -0000 --_000_FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDDF699211DACHE113605emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support forwarding this doc. Olaf On 2014-1-18, at 5:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: > Folks, > > Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is > ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January. > > If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object > this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit > your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I > like the other solution better" is not a technical comment. > > Please note that: > - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure > IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question. > > - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must not > do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issue > at a time. > > - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list > discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4 > without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends: > DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6". > > With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not > reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in > scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prove > whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere. > There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every > possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much > more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time to > wrap things up here and move on. > > Bernie & Tomek > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg --_000_FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDDF699211DACHE113605emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support forwardin= g this doc.

 

Olaf

 

On 2014-1-18, at 5:50, To= mek Mrugalski wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Authors and chairs = feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> (http://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
> ready for W= GLC. Please post your comm= ent by end of January.
>
> If you support this draft moving for= ward, please say so. If you object
> this draft moving forward, pleas= e explain your concerns. Please limit
> your posts to technical comme= nts and skip your personal preferences. "I
> like the other solu= tion better" is not a technical comment.
>
> Please note t= hat:
> - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to co= nfigure
> IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that q= uestion.
>
> - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pi= eces here. We must not
> do that. This is related, but a different pr= oblem. Let's solve one issue
> at a time.
>
> - -04 featu= res an update that is a result of some off the list
> discussions. In= essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4
> with= out modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends:
> DHCPv4-over-= DHCPv6".
>
> With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask yo= u to do your best to not
> reopen the discussion of solution X being = marginally better over Y in
> scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up = with new metrics that would prove
> whatever metric inventor wants to= prove. But that will lead us nowhere.
> There is probably no single = solution that will be the best in every
> possible deployment scenari= o. We discussed that for over a year (much
> more if you take into ac= count Softwire discussions). It's a high time to
> wrap things up her= e and move on.
>
> Bernie & Tomek
>
>
> _= ______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://= www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

=
= --_000_FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDDF699211DACHE113605emea1_-- From brian@innovationslab.net Fri Jan 31 07:40:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11B51A020C for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yyishpw4XlvJ for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126B61A038E for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83079880D1; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from 102524131.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169F91368142; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52EBC3EA.1020104@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:40:26 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg@tools.ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f6LMgNDFSSWVLTCHprHVJIm9Q6qF0VJBV" Subject: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:40:43 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --f6LMgNDFSSWVLTCHprHVJIm9Q6qF0VJBV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, I have done my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg (since Ted is listed as a co-author). I only have a few points of discussion on this document before we move it along in the publication process. I am by no means a DHCP expert, so let me know if I have gone off in the weeds... 1. I would like to see a little more clarity in the purpose of this document. It does a good job clarifying what a relay agent should do with existing messages, but I think it would be useful to spell out that is document is also dictating how future documents that define new DHCP messages should specify relay behavior. 2. In section 4.1, the text talks about targeting a message based on its message type. To me, that suggests that a relay must know about all DHCP message types. I thought (feel free to correct me) that relay agents were mostly stateless and would forward all messages not addressed to them to the configured DHCP server. This assumes that all Relay-Reply messages are addressed to the relay directly. 3. After having an exchange with Ralph Droms, I want to ask about messages from servers to clients. If those messages are *not* in a Relay-Reply message, but are received by a relay, should those messages be dropped? If a server->client message is forwarded to a server by the relay, should it be dropped by the server? 4. Is there a need to specifically discuss the behavior of single devices that have both a relay agent and a client running at the same tim= e? 5. Also from Ralph... Could section 5 simply be written as "A client or server MUST silently discard any received DHCPv6 message with an unknown message type."? Regards, Brian --f6LMgNDFSSWVLTCHprHVJIm9Q6qF0VJBV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS68PwAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqUTkIAJBqWjL/6fryRn1r5rbjcvcu 164brHAfVpUt+orIjGJNM5Hz9HJN13Quv9/oeHdB7SdtnbfDWsjMMfQ51n776LHG JrqOhvCnNgFWPldFFJcqvbt1QQUx0e0xVGVfOQCmSg9IVJTlVchYNDy0I7QDMcSl XCtxiN89flY/kdYfHk3B8YFLlCMQlmZTfnkE1qYWR9Ri3Dqlf0bT0KujUM8qrziQ ZtA74HQJaIhAvfaW3cT+mnqCNhZt6oxjdDENzSqzOJKnABkh84ZuC9Co9ZDamTzO tmECvEJmx+5jxZs1MvNmifaHFuQhrVINRLE5dT2jwFNPlpL4oYbeU2Z07ggXNYY= =2tXi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f6LMgNDFSSWVLTCHprHVJIm9Q6qF0VJBV--