Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Marcin Siodelski <> Wed, 11 December 2013 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6601AE1D7 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k1HA44gSd8lT for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0307A1AE195 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id to1so11805068ieb.32 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ywe+Ex1dDskBaY+rDzbVDkR3LRL6ajnK8aa0/7Y8iHk=; b=kz8gQvRGnPV+X3DG4ZuVFhPS6a6I1Y38umGU1K4174JghTRmamzdrtOaZL8pvujdsb Z5WnoF1qtXg8lEPSDAFDeijPlzJsCagDlRDnsenDDD17AM5lLUaQBxYikhZ/gMPXdnWV pbi5uBYAWqtiG8sKhp6Cp4V9OG/fZ6SPsgNPhQBiN9FlzB6Pe1MpKy6ow7u1i3NTRLr5 g077CjkQmJNQHkjEd/P+Yf7a7Tt56Cxc3ZW9pGPgc9XHTkrMeSxcUMJ/PBPti3XBf574 aH9IcdJ+2tE1VBhNJ+i4f212ePblqJmy68wzyKkxHYgdY4gKOesRG2bu/eRUKX+OuX+K l0Wg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id or2mr2640705icb.19.1386790771290; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:39:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:39:31 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Marcin Siodelski <>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
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, 11 Dec 2013 19:39:38 -0000

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <> wrote:
> 9.       A general issue … I wonder whether we have a kind of catch-22. As
> DHCP is interface specific, and the tunnel interface may not be able to
> ‘come up’ until after the address is assigned, what interface is this
> ‘DHCPv4’ (4o6) client associated with? Is it the v6 interface? Or a
> ‘provisional’ tunnel interface? Or, is this left up to the implementation to
> deal with (since in one sense it probably doesn’t matter much – except of
> course if one was trying to bring up multiple tunnel interfaces over the
> same v6 interface; but that requires other special logic so may not be a
> concern).

I wonder if we have to associate the 4o6 client with any interface
before the tunnel configuration arrives. The draft mandates that
conforming implementation uses RFC4361 so there should be no problem
of lacking chaddr on the client side. I think we should also mention
that RFC6842 should be implemented on the server side so as it
respects a client identifier, not chaddr.
Before the client gets the tunnel configuration the tunnel interface
doesn't exist. The 4o6 client just generates the client identifier
(unique by IAID) for the tunnel to be established. Once the v4
configuration is complete, the tunnel is created and the client
associates the client identifier with this tunnel/interface.