[dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 18:21 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16575 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:21:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA13474 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:21:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12737; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12673 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:02:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlrel6.hp.com (atlrel6.hp.com [156.153.255.205]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16006 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dce.india.hp.com (dce.india.hp.com [15.10.45.122]) by atlrel6.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8C600819 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:01:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vijayak@localhost) by dce.india.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id XAA08447; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:35:21 +0530 (IST)
From: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <200201161805.XAA08447@dce.india.hp.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:35:20 +0530
Cc: vijayak@dce.india.hp.com
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.2 $]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I had gone through the latest rev of DHCPv6 draft. Sorry for the delay in telling the comments. - I think we need to fix the order of occurence some options that can appear in the dhcp messages. I think, the DUID option should occur before the IA option. This makes the processing simpler. - I didn't get, why the authentication option should be the last one. I feel like it should be the first one. If the server/client is not able to validate the authentication, it can straight away discard the packet without further processing. - Section 13 says the ways for selecting addresses for assignment in IAs. Assume, the server has got a direct message from the client. The IP datagram source address is a site-local one. The message is received on the server's interface, which is configured with a global address. According to the draft, the server should assume that the client is on the link identified by the sitelocal address in datagram. Now, the problem arises, if the server is not configured for allocating site-local address for the link. Now, can the server assume, since the client has sent the direct message, it is on the same link as the server and assign it an address of global scope, with the same prefix of its received interface. I think, i have already raised the similar kind of problem previously, the answer i had got was to select address of global scope. Then, the server should not select the link based on the source address. This is an implementation problem we faced. FYI, HP has officially released DHCPv6. This implementation is based on 16th and some portion of 18th version of the draft. This software is freely available at http://software.hp.com/ You can download it and tell me your comments. - Using DUID, how the address selection is done? - The draft says that, when the client needs an additional temporary address, it can include OPTION_RTA encapsulated in OPTION_IA and get the additional one. This means, in the same IA, any number of addresses can be can be added and deleted. Will it hold for normal addresses also? I mean, for additional normal addresses, whether the client has to use already existing IA to get additional address (or) will it use a fresh IA? I remember that, the answer i got for this question 3-4 months back was that the client will use fresh IA, because, adding address to the same IA will lead complexity. Just in curiosity, i am asking, why this complexity was introduced for temporary addresses? Why can't the client can ask additional temporary addresses in a fresh IA? - Can temporary addresses and normal addresses can co-exist in same IA? If yes, then, for renewal, does the client send normal addresses alone in IA to the server? since, the renewal of temporary addresses is meaningless. - I thought for decreasing the load of server, unlike DHCPv4, in DHCPv6, the dns updates was moved to client. But, the draft says that, for temporary addresses, the server has to update the DNS. Why this feature was included in server, instead of client? - Why only temporary has to be updated in DNS? why not normal addresses? - I think for updation, we need to define, hostname/FQDN option for this. - How can the client specify the number of address it wants? Will it send IA optio with 'n' number empty of IA_ADDR option? Instead of that, can we define another option OPT_RA similar to OPT_RTA, that can be encapsulated in OPT_IA? - Section 17.1.2 says that the client collects Advertise messages until SOL_TIMEOUT has elapsed. Then, RT will be recalculated. Now, does the client needs to retransmit the SOLICIT message? If it is so, then, the same server will reply multiple times. But the retransmission algorithm in Section 15 says that, it should retransmit the packet. - In section 17.1.2, we need to add a sentence, "When the RT reached MRT, if the one or more valid advertise message is obtained, the client should stop sending Advertise message and proceed further with collected Advertise message". Otherwise, since MRC and MRD are 0, this process will go infinetly according to algorithm specified in Section 15. This is also an implementation problem we faced. - In some place, the server should fill "server-address" with one of its address based on the link in which the packet is received. In another place, it is said that the server-address field can be filled with the address configured by the administrator. What is the standard procedure to be followed? - In Advertise, should the server assign all the addresses asked by the client? (or) only few of them? - Till what time, these OFFERED addresses are preserved for those clients to assign? - If the server has fewer addresses than the client has asked, will the server assign fewer addresses or send AddrUnavail? - The draft says that the renew message can be used for checking up the validity of the other configuration parameters. For checking the validity of them, will the client send the option codes in ORO option (or) send the parameters in their respective options? - Should release/decline of addresses be done for IA as whole? (or) Can few addresses be relased from an IA? (partial release) - Assuming the client is sending multiple IAs for renewing, the server finds that one particular IA is not found in the client bindings, will it renews the remaining IAs? (or) will it send NoBinding error? - What will the client do, for the multiple IAs sent for renew, only one IA is missing in the reply? - Can you explain the differnce between, "configuration information are not valid" and "configuration information does not match". In the first case, for Confirm message ConfNoMatch is sent and for the next one, it is sending SUCCESS. The draft says that for ConfNoMatch, the client should send renew message. If the configuration parameters are not matching, then what is the use of sending renew message? - For the cases like, "conf parameters are not valid", "conf parameters does not match" and "prefix does not match", what will the server do, for the release message? What will the server do? if (i) all, (ii) only few addresses are invalid. Will the server release the address which are valid? - Section 21.6.5.5 says that, if the client is not able to validate the authentication for the REPLY message, then it should start with the SOLICIT. I feel that this is inefficient, instead, it can try the next available server which has sent the advertise message. - In the previous versions, we have Retransmission Parameter option. Why it was removed? - Some useful options were defined in DHCPv6 extension draft. When will those options be included in this draft? I have found some typos in the draft. - In section 7.3, for reconfigure message, the client should intiate, Renew/Reply not the Request/Reply - In 19.2, it is saying that, for Inform message, all the IAs to be included. This a simple cut-paste problem. - 19.3.4 says, "The client uses the same variables and retransmission algorithm as it does with Rebind or Information....". It should be "Renew or Information..." - In 22.14, the server address field in Server Unicast Option is missing. - In 22.19, User class option message format looks messy, because of some sentences in between. Regards Vijay -- ____Vijay_Bhaskar_A_K____ ________HP_ESDI__________ ___Ph:_91_080_2051424____ ____Telnet:_847_1424_____ ___Pager:_9624_371137____ _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Jim Bound
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Martin Stiemerling
- [dhcwg] Question on DHCPv6 Draft 23. Paul Tan