IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 13 July 2017 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 522DD13175A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 wkHxmaBsXFRM for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F187A131713 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k14so35504116pgr.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JPPQ3M4bWYBgUTjP5CgG4jBaR1UsRyuaweuNKbN7Wb8=; b=1cPd9t/lPqGvtiYCuSWkoUOakg9W9Y8yivFlvZEB/HFL3TdHr7xMJrvKlI3vFsXy+2 H9aO2L6cspQIduTNVa6faQWmSTxTmzG1fPMpJtPh65sVgfFUoXsfJayVLybJYOG73dmj RB6sy8KuWPW8pFajZbwAtZsNS3YzyxQymuDg0DuSSdbzqzY+1JHHhci8Q8//RORiPUCs 6c6fzEtMA/9fqwJHjVIO0xgMge1iPdX3t+8up8/DZVbPBQ1jhgRN0XWjlq9hCU+DreNi 1hKmu4K7kLJAr5WCzTaMdN7eyPtNtxKjpoAM6wQxJzKkodVTX+uyqjvSJ7GIdbe5h81S sIig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JPPQ3M4bWYBgUTjP5CgG4jBaR1UsRyuaweuNKbN7Wb8=; b=Q4bpsrn1HFAlDEOdtOUVjIyHaA3XFW3WpKsjLCzgkB07Mjvpp7jEq8P1ieeYtA4Lyi dZitwBTIsoQUcyJrT1WmuWcVfWUYbTqq3+eCuyYSvEeKc/aFFG3Bt0IzGeBcb+BOPJ2u 2TbLALVdS9Pl5KEy0Jlk4eTuq3Ur2nOWmVfMWapwfiDjv1Olv79LYnOxbX8favWYD3vh o/5DF/Bv2Q+1tHatPCpRIEtbPLPd16rQOdBCAEzTFYpSba+FapyDRmB7lKfMUok2+iiG dZ4h3mWeJzDN1BuP9lbinx5umtjUYAtA/zRDvLyWwWb+brIUn+bv55NsX4CFVDiaiE0p J6lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110LbvK2cgGL6YZuE3sVA4nCndoh3lqo8z/E+Qy7Y2tpjw7Jzinp AQNJoNKQjODpaC4wQYjB17IkjnwYqG2y
X-Received: by 10.99.123.18 with SMTP id w18mr11293391pgc.122.1499980496612; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5fdc7054-7012-30ee-dec7-618f3cd3646f@gmail.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com> <3285281858d043649d507b6bda7b8646@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <1f94b780-59c1-42ce-936d-0c8a71143444@gmail.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <5fdc7054-7012-30ee-dec7-618f3cd3646f@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:14:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=8Aibz0qWib=RiCr510i6DeGGZSOFNnWG0h-mguUzgqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c64baabc2b00554396ccf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/AJL7X5CGq0tJ3R5YbC0utCc8uSo>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:14:59 -0000

On Jul 13, 2017 16:01, "Alexandre Petrescu" <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
wrote:

My oppinion is to make DHCP spec Hop Limit > 1.  In order to make sure
that the encap/decap of DHCP Solicit in IPv4 GTP happening on a cellular
link does not drop it to 0 upon decap.


If a link local sourced multicast with a hop limit of one is dropped
between sender and receiver, ip is broken on that link, ne c'est pas?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email