Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA

Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> Wed, 15 November 2017 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <roy@marples.name>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E17129584 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:31:35 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=marples.name
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 iA1CA3Q5xV1l for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.marples.name (relay.marples.name [137.74.41.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D0712954B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.marples.name (cpc115040-bour7-2-0-cust370.15-1.cable.virginm.net [81.108.15.115]) by relay.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2F31C0EE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:31:31 +0000 (GMT)
Authentication-Results: relay.marples.name; dmarc=pass header.from=marples.name
Authentication-Results: relay.marples.name; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=marples.name header.i=@marples.name header.b=LJ2ukXqi; dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from [10.73.2.50] (lt-roy-pc01.marples.name [10.73.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F7C762E9FE; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:31:21 +0000 (GMT)
Authentication-Results: mail.marples.name; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=marples.name
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=marples.name; s=mail; t=1510741881; bh=K79AwcfDWrJOar/1VcNShWBBATH2/BNcF05gPqEYQO8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LJ2ukXqi0ujp3lSWPFfGza/154C7niyDdFs2gjk1L73dAhbPERlc1Fg1ODoK4BegZ qMWBLwNK0DMm/9r9iT7FR555nNrfEOEl4BMBfBUZu/AwIPAuq+p3hfsJdAW9ekEY4O 5oe015Li3UxBfkdSBbIBs5LpeICl23wqTMk6NwT8=
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <d944ac55-d67d-d7d4-8eeb-f60438fdda2d@gmail.com> <35558A79-C176-4D71-9E91-4BDB19DDD006@cisco.com> <67ba54d2-d53f-82bf-93c9-1b92631ef4e8@gmail.com> <86409a9acb7846ddbdff42c58328e7d6@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <eccd5dd2-3542-fdbc-89a2-7d13d563163d@gmail.com> <2fbc8325961c49a1944e3ee216fcb032@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <a3f9cd45-403a-c6f6-6e9a-98a9b651a339@gmail.com> <4c25045f863a4e368f58a5a4a3917bde@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <37918108-c5ed-a82d-2d97-227388ec25d0@gmail.com> <1A785964-1088-4081-B7DC-58E3CD9B0605@cisco.com> <9bad26dc5b2d42ee9cca47adb32eedc0@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DB4FB172-B3CB-4471-9E07-A4CEE34D6A82@fugue.com> <f5b1fdd0-407f-c4ef-d937-dfd3ad909b47@marples.name> <CAPt1N1nh0rfi+zhc+emu4V1sZk+hgDpJGKBW_uVNdxp-GuJYMw@mail.gmail.com> <c7f1410a-f6ab-0551-d586-9d6c9e04a093@marples.name> <FD4C36E2-6C5A-43E5-864E-AF7AD6D25B87@cisco.com>
From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>
Message-ID: <94c43dcb-ae27-d55b-83b5-2b8808f5a5f6@marples.name>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:32:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FD4C36E2-6C5A-43E5-864E-AF7AD6D25B87@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/-J35taKXmonDzETHGVmBip_N9vY>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:31:35 -0000

You are correct.

What I don't understand is if it's optional, why does the option exist 
in the first place if people here are saying not to use it?

Roy

On 15/11/2017 10:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> If I understand you, there is no requirement that unicast be used & so 
> the servers (upstreams) are broken.
> 
> - Bernie (from iPhone)
> 
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Roy Marples <roy@marples.name 
> <mailto:roy@marples.name>> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/11/2017 09:09, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> I would have to review, but isn't unicast support optional?
>>
>> Yes it is as written in the RFC.
>>
>> However, during development of dhcpcd there are at least two upstreams 
>> who don't renew if it's not unicast when the unicast option is given.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg