Re: [dhcwg] DHCP impacts from draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Jari - I agree with Bernie's analysis about the impact of your draft  
on DHCPv*.

I have a question about the mechanics of the request to IANA: do you  
want to specify how the request to IANA is documented?  For example,  
RFC 2939 requires that new DHCP options be documented in an RFC before  
IANA receives a request for the associated option code.  Will a simple  
request to IANA, for example through http://iana.org/cgi-bin/assignments.pl 
, be sufficient for new ARP codes?

- Ralph

On Dec 1, 2008, at Dec 1, 2008,6:02 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> Hum ... Didn't realize this was such a problem.
>
> There's no issue that I can see with DHCPv4 - you've addressed the
> 1-octet issue for future assignments because of the limit on the htype
> field. For DHCPv6, there is no issue as it has a 2-octet field.
>
> Thus, draft looks OK to me.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 4:29 PM
> To: Dhcwg
> Cc: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Russ Housley
> Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP impacts from draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I recently wrote a draft about the IANA rules regarding ARP, as no  
> such
> rules were defined before.
>
> During last call, it became apparent that there are a few other
> protocols that use the same numbers. For instance, specialized forms  
> of
> ARP for certain link layers or DHCPv4/6. Having realized this, we  
> did a
> more thorough search of the RFC series to attempt to find all such  
> uses.
>
> The new version of my draft lists all these uses and updates the  
> RFCs in
>
> question.
>
> I would like to ask for your review to make sure (a) that the ARP rule
> change is OK from the perspective of your protocol and (b) we have  
> found
>
> all uses of the ARP numbers. Here's what the draft says:
>
> "The change is also applicable to extensions of ARP that use the same
> message format, such as [RFC0903], [RFC1931], and [RFC2390].
>
> The change also affects other protocols that employ values from the  
> ARP
> name spaces.  For instance, the ARP hardware address type (ar$hrd)
> number space is also used in the "htype" (hardware address type)  
> fields
> in Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) [RFC0951] and Dynamic Host Configuration
> Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131], as well as in the "hardware type" field in
> the DHCP Unique Identifiers in DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. These protocols are
> therefore affected by the update in the IANA rules.  Other affected
> specifications include the specialized address resolution mechanisms  
> in
> HYPERchannel [RFC1044], DHCP options [RFC2132], [RFC4361], ATM
> (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) ARP [RFC2225], HARP (High-Performance
> Parallel Interface ARP) [RFC2834], [RFC2835], Dual MAC FDDI (Fiber
> Distributed Data Interface) ARP [RFC1329], MAPOS (Multiple Access
> Protocol over Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital  
> Hierarchy)
>
> ARP [RFC2176], FC (Fibre Channel) ARP [RFC4338], and DNS Resource
> Records [RFC4701]."
>
> (We have only listed a protocol as affected when uses ARP values
> directly, e.g., in its own protocol message formats. Use of ARP as- 
> is is
>
> of course not an issue. I have also not listed the many IP over Foo
> specifications that talk about how to use ARP in Foo, describing what
> hardware type values to use, etc.)
>
> Here's the URL for the draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-04
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg