Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023
Li HUANG <bleuoisou@gmail.com> Sat, 23 September 2023 11:15 UTC
Return-Path: <bleuoisou@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 049A3C151090 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1k66U3zTx7gF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C724C15107E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c01d22f332so59888921fa.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695467696; x=1696072496; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Xfy1Dul+NdBQqVlIyb9L9LO9uGAkUjFyX+LGR1wY7X4=; b=Txb28vtqYXB6b3eSj6yOTigAzKans8HoP924/0F9LA+OuOwQWin6mBx+fYMnlIe3wL 6JfKU+AKQ0Uqd2kM5/dPaRrn8wd5HcvDMyHQd1wZvu1yfKlmJ9p88K6FmT78yuaN8UOg fixnAUWHg2EU+cvIqXLCCpfyy+GodXu4P1aXIUrjZN5fJ4BaVHbk2fFTmKCBoiXyL7ld MPryUclBXv2VU3QWATGa9aFlzLuvwgcpKfUVKkqhjZoxVhn+MY4jZf/vl5BA1fx5gKiy WuVNL/t9l7TOqHwqzN7UugAU/hXd0+dq7/JXdmAcSsYOOrMX1rGedbwuu/9VjDq2kUYs 4oIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695467696; x=1696072496; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Xfy1Dul+NdBQqVlIyb9L9LO9uGAkUjFyX+LGR1wY7X4=; b=VO/d51IWsAP6/RvJ/553pE8rjUm4YEgUtzLo8hyawyD9BxsThFCgB9ZNUac2vIiQsO WxPqd8uCoXV7gpXitaJ8NCJAMRuIlw+xJirZYx7usxOmlpKYrdgsLZY5YIC1j2i39UrY 0pbJifnJWmmLWfMF7sAuopUR55x7VVIR33FVR/bx6ju0xJ4BkkQcydizZx1gDzXjGZ3t W9LUb04NfBWcQlcEQV7b/YVTlkynwWTefLm61TbrHxR1rm69NTTr2NEEyqJFJSGcs6wJ rPtjZAO8eKUEUQUCtqRDTAJS8RA3anaWfCCBAi7fRHNHe6EmBBzJMEWFThCitBoyvmi4 Dz7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyFMwvbs3zWuG0IDZk+BQNxNHn5OtAoUliwJ8eqTmKpUEMVDnxw VCZC/Vx4VHIXhQZkPkEdihHqVbEoo0jP7Latoq8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGQrDRKaq4Gw2bpFj+1thnzzC2j7ygT332kxzvTaVzXqFOd8iuVmfkf74WmFk2HpUAKjDkI/eu1438iKi8PMOs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3e10:b0:503:962:b6cf with SMTP id i16-20020a0565123e1000b005030962b6cfmr1000649lfv.9.1695467695921; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJgLMKvATJP78ONPc8f6kG2eNWq83XCTSdvRLVGKWB26JGrANQ@mail.gmail.com> <1E185C09-B45E-4B1E-81F8-3CB6141B9881@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <1E185C09-B45E-4B1E-81F8-3CB6141B9881@employees.org>
From: Li HUANG <bleuoisou@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 19:14:40 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGGiuEarwoctsok5YJP2=+ypfxem+AUMCUtMXOFDE1jUT6WdLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be5d9f060604d588"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/8Sn6QWZ7jpTp8ppy1IHngCKmdSI>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 11:15:02 -0000
Sept 23 2023 19:03.hk X30 Good day every, Hop 1st may be robust that never configured it, perhaps once set up, the multiple prefixes AAAA won't be configurable ? In case one of isp only dhcpv6 sometimes unfunctioning . One of domain issuers front of. Switch *Cisco 1 item* met its exp. End of life , contract#, GUI # all different from local .hk when accepting case supporting from else region globally. Asking Cisco near 2 years , no clearly replied on allowance / or not in such case?! RFC8174, 2119 since 1996~ reported to ISP , yet clearly replied their server billing caring in case sensitive to user account name ... Sincerely Li HUANG On Sat, Sep 23, 2023, 16:08 Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > I do wonder if it’s not worth doing a complete retake of this proposal. > > If the operator requirement is to know which address has been in use in > the network by which device at any point in time, then that cannot be > guaranteed with this mechanism. Existing first-hop security mechanisms in > switches and routers would be much more robust. > > O. > > On 22 Sep 2023, at 22:22, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > The working group had some great discussion about this document during the > WGLC. Based on the discussion it didn't pass WGLC at this time. It will > mostly need another round of discussion and potentially a revision based on > those discussions. > > Additionally, Bernie and I discussed and think it's a good idea to wait to > ask IANA for a early code points until we have passed WGLC. > > Regards, > Tim > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:16 PM Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote: > >> An interesting question may be do we need new messages at all? Using >> Information Request / Reply with new option is perhaps cleanest? >> - existing clients can do what they do today >> - existing servers (and relays or other snoopers) will not know option so >> ignore (hopefully silently) >> - existing servers only see “more” Information-Request for clients not >> supporting this new work when enabling O-bit to request address >> registrations >> - “new” clients that do SLAAC when O-bit set and did support >> Information-Request can do initial registration in first message (or send >> when address assigned) and do periodic updates (perhaps even ask for other >> options via ORO to refresh information) … they may actually have no more >> messages than today (well, except if they have multiple SLAAC addresses as >> need to use a separate Information-Request for each) … they could also >> decouple previous and new behavior at increase in traffic. >> - registration only clients that did not use Information-Request >> previously add new traffic … which is exactly what we want >> >> The only downside is it kind of overloads Information-Request as it is >> now also a client to server communication. Though the client already can >> send information to server in Information-Request (user class, vendor >> class, vendor information, …). And, we could say the client is asking >> whether the server supports registration (by getting new option in Reply). >> >> Note: It may be worth thinking about making use of the new “registration >> address” option’s encapsulated options field if client wants to send other >> information (such as fqdn). This isn’t really bad as this is likely address >> specific and any server that wanted to do something with this data needs >> updating anyway. This keeps all of the registration information hidden from >> those devices that don’t that registration option. >> >> Anyway, this is now a very good reason to hold off on early assignment >> for message types (and likely say WGLC failed). >> >> - Bernie (from iPad) >> >> On Sep 14, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi: >> >> (Just catching up and responding to this as was asked specifically…there >> could have been more I haven’t yet read.) >> >> 8415bis only prohibits IA options in Information-Request >> >> 16.12. Information-request Message >> >> Clients MUST discard any received Information-request messages. >> >> Servers MUST discard any received Information-request message that >> meets any of the following conditions: >> >> * the message includes a Server Identifier option (see >> Section 21.3), and the DUID in the option does not match the >> server's DUID. >> >> * the message includes an IA option. >> >> >> I wonder however if having an Address Registration option specifically >> would be better (the Information-Request and new registration request could >> use this instead of IA_Addr option). This might avoid an overly aggressive >> server or relay that checks the Information-Request or its Reply for >> options from doing odd things if it sees the IAAddr. If we’re trying to >> make things safe, this may be best. Note also that it may help other >> devices in the path that may want to snoop for this data. (But it could >> have downside if any “options” are developed as then those specifications >> would need to determine if they are also allowed in this new address >> option). >> >> >> On a separate note, one issue the current draft may need to document and >> is a consideration is that when O-bit (RA) and A-bit (PIO) is set, a >> registration only server should really support Information-Request as it >> will also get lots of those from clients that support DHCPv6 - it may just >> send back a pretty empty Reply. >> >> By using Ted’s suggestion of using Information-Request, it would be >> natural for registration only to be implemented at least sufficiently to >> send a well formed Reply even when not address registration request. >> >> It seems like a clever idea to use Information-Request at least for >> initial determination of support. >> - it avoids extra packets. >> - client could honor server’s INF_MAX_RT to reduce frequency of probing >> (likely periodic probing is not a bad idea). >> >> >> - Bernie (from iPad) >> >> On Sep 14, 2023, at 11:29 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:22 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote: >> >>> What I think would be most expedient (if we must use DHCP to probe for >>> support of address registration) would be to do the first address >>> registration as an information request with the additional information in >>> the information request, using the source address being registered. If the >>> reply that comes back confirms the address registration, then all >>> subsequent address registrations on this link would be sent as address >>> registrations. >>> >> >> Well, but if we can come up with a reasonable way to represent an address >> registration using an information-request packet, then why not make all >> registrations be information-request packets? >> >> +Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> any thoughts on using >> information-request and reply messages, instead of the new addr-reg-inform >> and addr-reg-reply messages currently defined in the draft? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dhcwg mailing list >> dhcwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >> > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >
- [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification… Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Erik Kline
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Sheng Jiang
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… David Farmer
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Li HUANG
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… David Farmer
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Timothy Winters
- [dhcwg] Fwd: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notific… Li HUANG
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Li HUANG
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Mark Smith
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… David Farmer
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Alan DeKok
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… rob@deepdivenetworklng.com
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notifica… Nick Buraglio