IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 D896E21F8578 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tiC58NJddH0H for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468C421F8574 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEkZL9HPYFnfISxeXuD5dY0irexoJDQC@postini.com; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:44:16 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ED21B8346 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CA1819005C; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:15 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNhTu7gFlX/ZntC0OFRh8xVQ/AAZdwtBEAgACi1QCAAB9FgIAAA4kAgAABYICADN9FgIAAAgsA
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:44:15 +0000
Message-ID: <D76799F8-E98C-40A3-956F-950DAE4B76DA@nominum.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAL10_BpXdx03WfV1PeMKg1zYc1dAFKe1CDNdrcNf45+_EVCBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com> <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <D6A23D99B900974FA89BAE51F1D4FF42@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Sep 2012 21:44:17 -0000

On Sep 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
 wrote:
> Any particular reason for revisiting the hash algorithm itself, as
> opposed to just dropping the 16 byte limit in DHCPv6?

I don't actually remember the criteria that were used to choose the old hash algorithm.   Are we still happy with it?   Things have changed since the previous draft was published.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email