Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

<ian.farrer@telekom.de> Wed, 27 November 2013 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ian.farrer@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97401AD958 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:10:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 92wVaKWzDpNz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B741ADBC9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from he113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 27 Nov 2013 16:10:10 +0100
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:10:10 +0100
From: <ian.farrer@telekom.de>
To: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:10:12 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
Thread-Index: Ac7rgsPmTvPH276zRVGsfIMdMHjfSQ==
Message-ID: <CEBBC722.9D48D%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
In-Reply-To: <5295FCDD.9000300@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:10:26 -0000

>
>- The client MUST always include both OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE and
>OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER in the ORO.
>
>- The server responds with zero (if DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is not available)
>or one of two options. Never both.
>     - OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE means "multicast".
>     - OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER means "unicast".

[ian] Agree - this seems cleaner than needing two options to provision
unicast.

>If this makes sense, then I would rename the options:
>s/ENABLE/MULTICAST/ and s/SERVER/UNICAST/. And maybe go further and kill
>OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE, and just put the multicast address in the
>payload of OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER.

[ian] IIRC, putting the multicast address into the option was discussed in
the authoring process, but was rejected as being too error prone.

Cheers,
Ian