IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 107761A02F9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-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 ymjCITKfK_uu for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365E21A078F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (c-174-62-147-182.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [174.62.147.182]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B272223808C8; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1C1CA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:46:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ECD64B35-7A93-46B0-B573-E6A961322E01@fugue.com>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F51A2DB17@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <C7964664-C302-4ABE-9CAC-1AD5D9048699@cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1C1CA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/CNZMfvZo4osojZMkOkKPGZjaNWM
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
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, 19 Mar 2014 14:47:03 -0000

On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> To support 3396, you will likely have to encode the DHCPv4 PCP option as:
> 
> 	Option Code
> 	Length of option
> 	Length of PCP server 1
> 	IPv4 address(es) based on length of PCP server 1
> 	<Repeat the following as often as needed>
> 	Optional length of PCP server n
> 	     IPv4 address(es) based on PCP server n

This seems like a better option than the current proposal, although if it's done this way it's still essentially defining a new fragment type, isn't it?   Do we have existing examples of this?   I would define it as "option code, length of option, address count, addresses, address count, addresses..." instead of using byte lengths, but I suppose that's a detail.

If this does define a new fragment type, that should be done in a DHC wg document.   Should be pretty simple to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email