Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 29 February 2024 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 327D9C14F61D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ryPiZL14pdAH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE61DC14F689 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TlxQQ4979z9vhTn for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:25:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nrK_Z9K7MHLX for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:25:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlxQQ1M2Hz9vhTp for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:25:02 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p8.oit.umn.edu 4TlxQQ1M2Hz9vhTp
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p8.oit.umn.edu 4TlxQQ1M2Hz9vhTp
Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-564902d757bso870948a12.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:25:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1709223900; x=1709828700; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ULn6G27U9VE4VHa1ZNhH3HEh/rdOmGNeui/sM9AJtrw=; b=B6MD3jycTpK5/Wka/mFPHALHIDBMYp1/om1UBmwMNaqQCKuD0aTMpiIaiWb6Bk9WiA anxJJgyMHiqX4/7pnoE5btppTiMVU9P91wH2WUzy16JSDUn+nSLtUGjOtPfhfaTMIhJ7 9jmnKTaQq43NSnYNx9Pjt68NDRabiDZ/RAGG1PVX9SN4Np4cU5hhPhUmp3TekonIzRRZ 3tELw5YAoEfY4R9CZgInXL3igQk8vG+XrmPm3SCqbhf7EB7ZmI38HUPMuuHhbAx4econ BgdcYE1LLtbGD5F6iNv4HiHQteMurAjatttdCGaS2ka+V4uc5pJn7CAIcyfIN4MhDvB+ 6gdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709223900; x=1709828700; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ULn6G27U9VE4VHa1ZNhH3HEh/rdOmGNeui/sM9AJtrw=; b=ZrE17o9D9qED0s9j2Sp+9XRJP+6qD8VftMxxRmujamtRBFcMdIhHeGmU7fj6ChVN7v fvBwluLigjxVqiYWS039JtBoNwI5dspB2KZeBXHwxioZBmNiR0D900ZD1bg7XvJDYsh0 UXUa92ZZ3fC10SLcxU26xjbXfpUFMtVzEoMDM9ov8kPhFl+gilpRpmA9QD6CPHJ7Elhe RSOh9uw43ptzFOuf9MBzI/1WE6ijPsJKffr1KFTkDzpNfdiitINCisuJHcHz1YyIYdX0 fggjT+6F4smEMpkPlUHk10/sZWqrm7n/TP9LkJlFur0fOdlOTUXhkvbKQEY2FdfBfQ3f bqcw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX6PErYdKe+Ewu0WCFmRgTAEQRZWaVIAQLOdrmQ6ZFO1lkHE1ir1D0leEnK/smV/RTzILXJiRrWaslheXKvmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyPIH5OLZ9Lq2O5zl+d+iVwkkOsudiC5jZ1tlLp/JnUvBbXEfbc 3G8dneVxrW11P1lLslaSWmnh15IJkFo9w3oZOAiVosaGK33PLNBzsVeDOCPgeT8IRUrMUDOm0E6 4WmY7mtGBdRN1NOD6gDeMHCSO9ZS5aKzHhPfjYQEB390gRJZIu1LRN6KI5VSAjpSI8hTEkX0Vbq WR0PMlqCntp5KafHrjfoPwVkuYK7mmQJwF
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c58d:0:b0:564:7007:e14c with SMTP id g13-20020aa7c58d000000b005647007e14cmr1866069edq.22.1709223900178; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:25:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFbwBFdZQgLJvfAm3D/8eUEtRtE4qzZA6XrA5faVUDFjA0dK2zcAT91dCNuDGpJ0JejRjLScq+6AcEwJIdYe2M=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c58d:0:b0:564:7007:e14c with SMTP id g13-20020aa7c58d000000b005647007e14cmr1866050edq.22.1709223899745; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:24:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <44363ABD-3FF1-4EA6-9E4D-85152467F24D@employees.org> <BAB1070B-E2B3-4430-B355-871B8AE1AEDF@gmail.com> <7031AD5E-97AB-42FF-99B5-DFD32F8FD665@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <7031AD5E-97AB-42FF-99B5-DFD32F8FD665@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:24:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau14nHcuN6HBQsLBNcYkCK1seE4r5iLcg+3d=8WBMK0eJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062e33a061287b3aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/40dgQJjzYogfG3TgzommODNomPM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:25:10 -0000

Would this text clarify things?

Clients receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 546.  Servers and
relay agents receive DHCP messages on UDP (destination) port 547.

Clients, servers, and relay agents MAY send DHCP messages from any UDP
(source) port they are allowed to use, including their designated
destination ports. Nevertheless, regardless of the source port the client
uses, the server or relay agent MUST send traffic to the designated
destination port of the client. And vice versa, regardless of the source
port used by the server or relay agent, the client MUST send traffic to the
designated destination port of the server or relay agent.


Thanks

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:03 AM Ole Troan <otroan=
40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Bernie,
>
> > DHCPv6 has been successfully deployed and this is the first I recall of
> this kind of discussion/issue.
> > You would likely also invalidate a lot of implementations with such a
> change, which is not really in line with advancing this to Full Standard.
>
> It’s a lot more important to have the specification clear and unambiguous.
> I think it has been shown that it isn’t.
> Happy with whatever solution there is consensus for, but the ambiguity has
> to be resolved I think.
>
> O.
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================