Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@gmail.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 AC86621F8BE6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oW5QDZt2ucWJ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com (mail-la0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F9121F87B7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fp13so3654599lab.38 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VmtWO35M8LP7jbIfkwvpmgaNCn45tPnXKG84TxQI8Mw=; b=CeN74EOp8sl8YSluP109RkkgONyjMaxmPNyrP2q5VhvoBNBNC3NWq6b1ulbtf3jw/D /ZqFYwCtIY8TdaAePxRmKaj45DLPXelADtMyWDbAeQ0ZWKpixjY+qOO7paHoRWleBDue T/1D/5AKs6A4gGFUQf7eGGBp0pQrMequX9WMJkLv85//V8dKwEHTsbhigKCZJjR0AGF3 qSBoxEYXyUNII1A40NAPEegHKSDSxF1pQeXeyznItqLFlC5jYIgNiW1GpdcrM/L23lEP MWvi+4R7HJZSPAVmDetHD073+rNQD4iEx4Z6Q9vBBj9PsL8yUdc+e5aQOimuTEigib/P ERmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.180.164 with SMTP id dp4mr25342815lbc.68.1375081516514; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.202.170 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:05:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUMLgyVFnhbF7LYhaiFm8HZt3H4T=Oj_014g_U0LcZBD0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2650e5445e404e2a11d4c"
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:05:18 -0000

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Also, the first part may be wrong in a light of rfc3315, section 19.1.1
> which says that server may send Reconfigure in the Relay-Reply message and
> since it is server initiated message, it is not sent "in response to a
> message from relay" as stated in the bullet.
>
> Those messages are never sent to relay agents.
>
> According to RFC3315, server may use Relay-Reply message if it can't send
Reconfigure directly to the client:

"If the server does not have an address to which it can send the
Reconfigure message directly to the client, the server uses a Relay-reply
message (as described in section 20.3) to send the Reconfigure message to a
relay agent that will relay the message to the client."

So, my understanding was that this is the server-initiated message which is
NOT sent in response to relay's message. IMO, this invalidates the first
part of the bullet which says "A standards-complient DHCP server will never
send a message to relay other than in response to a message from a relay.."

Marcin