Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

김우태(Network Innovation Projec) <> Mon, 13 February 2017 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D3112958B for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xZLGJJvfXsIw for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BB312941C for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from external ([]) by (1.0) id v1DNZQV00D2F; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:35:26 +0900
Received: by KTEX2.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 600) id 3vMhk644ySz418P1; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:35:03 +0900 (KST)
Received: from (unknown []) by KTEX2.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vMhjg3Xlsz4180L; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:35:03 +0900 (KST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:35:03 +0900
From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sei/7MXCKE5ldHdvcmsgSW5ub3ZhdGlvbiBQcm9qZWMp?= <>
To: "Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <>, Ted Lemon <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:35:02 +0000
Message-ID: <67EB6F85A7D7C04F9395712F712DAABC36C2EDFC@MAIL-MBX-02>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: ko-KR, en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_67EB6F85A7D7C04F9395712F712DAABC36C2EDFCMAILMBX02_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dhcwg <>, "" <>, Simon Hobson <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:37:01 -0000

I think IPv6 is co-existed with IPv4 for a while.
Devices have dual stack with IPv4 and IPv6 address.
And there are cases that traces the problem with IPv4 & IPv6 address information.
But, now there have no common key between them.
So, I think IPv6 information is included with device mac address for tracing IPv4.


From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:26 AM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: dhcwg;; Simon Hobson
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

Anyone else that would benefit from a list of devices (their MAC addresses) with assigned IPv6 addresses that are not valid or are unreachable?


From: Ted Lemon []
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:20 PM
To: Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
Cc: Simon Hobson; dhcwg;<>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <<>> wrote:
I would like to get more feedback from DHCPv6 users. Preferably, to prioritize the list below. What would be the number one priority item from this list that DHCPv6 users would like to address?

You have gotten as much feedback as you're likely to get on the working group mailing list.   As far as I can tell, the feedback is that none of the things you've listed are priorities, and for good reason.

이 메일은 지정된 수취인만을 위해 작성되었으며, 중요한 정보나 저작권을 포함하고 있을 수 있습니다. 어떠한 권한 없이, 본 문서에 포함된 정보의 전부 또는 일부를 무단으로 제3자에게 공개, 배포, 복사 또는 사용하는 것을 엄격히 금지합니다. 만약, 본 메일이 잘못 전송된 경우, 발신인 또는 당사에 알려주시고, 본 메일을 즉시 삭제하여 주시기 바랍니다.
This E-mail may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you receive this email by mistake, please either delete it without reproducing, distributing or retaining copies thereof or notify the sender immediately.