IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt

tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com> Sat, 14 November 2015 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <peter416733@gmail.com>
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 407031B3999 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 yiurGXBtDdn5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E85EA1B3998 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lffz63 with SMTP id z63so63381252lff.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:07 -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 :content-type; bh=AKoJ7rrzzrFQKx55k7euX3apJnYTswfNuxfQzbvZ5vk=; b=MgDnAt1f3UfWQN/BVsM2vZjMkFYE3kmU9ChQO9LdaTAYne8PNLPWTGnT91Ypv25FDb 2ACFTFdIPCh9gIeA+K/rmq+hpK3Xnb8+Lb+GijVru34puaEWK+/avlYtlRFaoaSVyrTv XnVLwRz9RLgbIKCVmuufVn/sMlqxk4pQ3OtEndLEJQFVOv02lesrGDbKay4N03pVl8K6 zvoA3YP3+fvNYLTFxpc378bOZLzQamfu0RN8x9u1qAxxXzWhP41yvAws1oZIpTs1QQIe 3UWwBV3JNjH34ObSS+jxB7ED1VcOsBE/ZTEusQc3817HZy0dfhB6nBgKwduXfPcINun6 y9Zw==
X-Received: by 10.25.209.210 with SMTP id i201mr12455447lfg.124.1447480687045; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.35.150 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:57:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151114055436.19147.29898.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20151114055436.19147.29898.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:57:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFx+hEMqsO_SGg0YZx_1xJYxeuoZuc8Bp4Z6rOtaZpq3Z9AdYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114009ca2bb2ac052479dc23"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/0LE0uXBCKxQyg4f13aAMly7-8A4>
Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:11 -0000

Hi all,

We have updated a new version of the DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues
draft, according to the comments from the ietf94 meeting and the
mailinglist.

Main changes:

1. Changed text structure, problem statement and solution are now written
in the same section.

2. Changed document type from Standards Track to Informational.

3. Changed terms "client/server" to "requesting router/delegating router",
to keep text unified with RFC3633.

4. In the solution part of section 3.5.  Receipt of Renew/Rebind Message,
we added an additional server solution choice. A server could assign a new
prefix and not mention the old prefix in the Reply message.

5. In the solution part of section 3.3.  Receipt of Advertise Message,
added reference to RFC7550 for the situation where the client requested for
both IA_NA and IA_PD options, and the server could not honor the
prefix-length hint of the IA_PD option.

Comments and reviews are appreciated.

Regards,
Tianxiang Li

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: 2015-11-14 13:54 GMT+08:00
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
To: Tianxiang Li <peter416733@gmail.com>, Yong Cui <
yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn>, Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tianxiang Li and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
Revision:       02
Title:          DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues
Document date:  2015-11-13
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          9
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02

Abstract:
   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] allows a requesting router to
   include a prefix-length hint value in the IA_PD option to indicate a
   preference for the size of the prefix to be delegated, but is unclear
   about how the requesting router and delegating router should act in
   different situations involving the prefix-length hint.  This document
   provides a summary of the existing problems with the prefix-length
   hint and guidance on what the requesting router and delegating router
   could do in different situations.




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.

The IETF Secretariat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email