IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-02 - respond by Apr 26

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Fri, 07 April 2017 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@cisco.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 E7DBE129631 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 AzT10CbJDEId for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2DCB1296C9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2424; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491524123; x=1492733723; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=L22EXdqjQYucgKgaWHvA6YpBdnZ5e4MVAtG66APYfoM=; b=dJ93YR34Ow3b94yaEkNxWYDcNkhGR2WHdW0iC7roSrTCFPBtJXi1zbJ/ ZDDPzv9Hp0VQMs/aT6GwPLA1otwA7dygqae6WmkdMM9JREhEpcVLZtpGE F4mL7e5dhTSAL7e5BJtlHjYiad+WWhvprFKqo0WFcFwlIQm780HxZK0fx M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CLAQAS2eZY/5tdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1SBbAcBjW2RIR+VVYIPhiICGoMuPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBIxFFBQsCAQgOCgICJgICAjAVEAIEDgWKBgipRoIminMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuHSAmCYoE8gwQJgxMugjEBBJxzAZJSgX6JB4Y4k3cBHziBBVsVUgGEVoFzdYckgS4BgQwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,161,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="405796851"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2017 00:15:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v370FN6E003940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 00:15:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:15:22 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:15:22 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-02 - respond by Apr 26
Thread-Index: AQHSrkJ4H/Lr+ZM5zE2RbI5PHueQ0qG5TpaAgAANOACAAABMAIAAA0oA
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:15:22 +0000
Message-ID: <DF64443D-4C36-4285-83EF-32FA32372B87@cisco.com>
References: <4cb9bdab-f3a2-a9d0-1056-302b5ecdeae7@gmail.com> <6815847B-EEB6-4824-959E-F8D845A14994@fugue.com> <BC8EABF0-A7EB-42EF-A78A-9B1DAC2A12C1@cisco.com> <51E35331-9AFA-4C75-851D-129AF3E3F5A8@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E35331-9AFA-4C75-851D-129AF3E3F5A8@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [128.107.155.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EF3D4A796C7A5842847A2E5730C4B5A8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/9yKVEVK40j1uNU6WaGuW5ywgna0>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-02 - respond by Apr 26
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: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:15:31 -0000

Hi Ted,

In section 4.1 “Source Port Sub-option for DHCPv4", it says:

   When a DHCP server receives a message from a relay agent with the
   "Source Port Sub-option", it MUST remember the UDP source port of the
   message and use that port number as the UDP destination port when
   sending the reply message to the same relay agent.

In section 4.2 “Source Port Sub-option for DHCPv6", it says:

   When a DHCPv6 server receives a Relay-forward message with the "Relay
   Source Port Option", it MUST copy the option when constructing the
   Relay-reply chain in response to the Relay-forward message.  This
   option MUST NOT appear in any message other than a Relay-forward or
   Relay-reply message.  Additionally, the DHCPv6 server MUST check and
   use the UDP source port from the UDP packet of the Relay-forward
   message in replying to the relay agent.

thus the dhcp server behavior for both v4 and v6 is defined.

Best Regards,
- Naiming

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> No, that's not quite what I mean.   What I mean is that you have to explicitly say what the DHCP server does.   Right now I'm not seeing that.    Maybe I missed it—I read the document pretty quickly.
> 
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> Thanks for the suggestion. Currently in section 6 “Compatibility”, it says:
>> 
>>    It is recommended to upgrade the server side first before using a non-DHCP
>>    UDP port for a relay agent.
>> 
>> How about changing to this:
>> 
>>   The DHCP server MUST be upgraded to support the extension specified
>>   in this document before the extension is used by a relay agent.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email