Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA

Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> Wed, 15 November 2017 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <roy@marples.name>
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 2C9F912944B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=marples.name
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VjR5SxXdw1i0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.marples.name (relay.marples.name [IPv6:2001:41d0:302:2100::2f63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEF01243FE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.marples.name (cpc115040-bour7-2-0-cust370.15-1.cable.virginm.net [81.108.15.115]) by relay.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E153D1C0EE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:58:44 +0000 (GMT)
Authentication-Results: relay.marples.name; dmarc=pass header.from=marples.name
Authentication-Results: relay.marples.name; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=marples.name header.i=@marples.name header.b=Qs9H34lb; dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from [10.73.2.50] (lt-roy-pc01.marples.name [10.73.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BB5362E9F3; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:58:34 +0000 (GMT)
Authentication-Results: mail.marples.name; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=marples.name
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=marples.name; s=mail; t=1510739914; bh=xt5mqyytRbMqP+iBjJhb6Nu8KNMrrc09Nf+2AKWEODI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Qs9H34lbWJzfgbqkbsY4mzLsQGCvkYCBZuKdsD6LRdivVzByGKaGHBYHtQFl35YlB w9x3rVf5b8GP8ichEJ/YI/7NF6TE+66GTqtctu1ZaOsme+NgomWbYSx2G5XQDyVRw9 IDPiXC2OiFm7EcPEDFp+tU+VG0qBFVZH+DKP97DI=
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <3285281858d043649d507b6bda7b8646@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <1f94b780-59c1-42ce-936d-0c8a71143444@gmail.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <d944ac55-d67d-d7d4-8eeb-f60438fdda2d@gmail.com> <35558A79-C176-4D71-9E91-4BDB19DDD006@cisco.com> <67ba54d2-d53f-82bf-93c9-1b92631ef4e8@gmail.com> <86409a9acb7846ddbdff42c58328e7d6@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <eccd5dd2-3542-fdbc-89a2-7d13d563163d@gmail.com> <2fbc8325961c49a1944e3ee216fcb032@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <a3f9cd45-403a-c6f6-6e9a-98a9b651a339@gmail.com> <4c25045f863a4e368f58a5a4a3917bde@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <37918108-c5ed-a82d-2d97-227388ec25d0@gmail.com> <1A785964-1088-4081-B7DC-58E3CD9B0605@cisco.com> <9bad26dc5b2d42ee9cca47adb32eedc0@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DB4FB172-B3CB-4471-9E07-A4CEE34D6A82@fugue.com> <f5b1fdd0-407f-c4ef-d937-dfd3ad909b47@marples.name> <CAPt1N1nh0rfi+zhc+emu4V1sZk+hgDpJGKBW_uVNdxp-GuJYMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>
Message-ID: <c7f1410a-f6ab-0551-d586-9d6c9e04a093@marples.name>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:59:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nh0rfi+zhc+emu4V1sZk+hgDpJGKBW_uVNdxp-GuJYMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7WnKI73kFc41g0J8Qan2-TVfK6k>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:58:47 -0000

On 15/11/2017 09:09, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I would have to review, but isn't unicast support optional?

Yes it is as written in the RFC.

However, during development of dhcpcd there are at least two upstreams 
who don't renew if it's not unicast when the unicast option is given.

Roy