IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-01 - Respond by March 31, 2014

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 13 March 2014 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 AE6401A087D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 5TJH8vtHkP0m for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87A81A0878 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10712; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394679167; x=1395888767; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=6moF8HzdLDQD5LKt/KtAvZwAg27viwqFjtA5YL5EjW4=; b=inq9FwxQHzUiybrJuNFlnf4nc04BBuvtiTD1xwzPy0s3iDJww4o/FaMI 6wtG1nXKyfyQnfWXi1MJB/4PnWTmmM3P97dMfMsyYznGYe8p3XUgnGjjl lMH+mJuxCe0b6ocIp7QCxILGJNJcZecA7UUyISX190+TC4s89I/GYWOFr 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FAKwcIVOtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABZgkJEO1fBX4EfFnSCJQEBAQQtXAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAQEEEwiHcdNIF44rDSoBgySBFASqcoFvgT6CKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,643,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="309771515"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2014 02:52:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2D2qjEM009864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:52:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.92]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:52:45 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-01 - Respond by March 31, 2014
Thread-Index: Ac8+ZAWxLB0+cGh7TmezKNoQaI9GngAAR23w
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:52:45 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF08B99@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF08ACE@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF08ACE@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.107]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF08B99xmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/C_xsDAUza8_12M9qy1yoc0beXNQ
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-01 - Respond by March 31, 2014
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 02:52:56 -0000

<WG co-chair hat off>

I have read this document and support it moving forward.

The only shortcoming is that there is no mention of how to handle the Reconfigure-Request messages in RFC 6977, Triggering DHCPv6 Reconfiguration from Relay Agents. It does mention this RFC and that load balancing applies, but as a Reconfigure-Request can contain many Client-IDs how this is handled isn't specified (i.e., there is not just one hash bucket).

I think the mechanism here would be that a server only handles the client-ids that hash to hash buckets it is servicing and "skips" the other clients. Note that the server would send a Reconfigure-Reply listing the client-ids it skipped because of load balancing (as well as any other client-ids it was unable to initiate a reconfigure for) - see section 6.6 of RFC 6977.


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:36 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-01 - Respond by March 31, 2014


This WGLC is for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-01. Please send your comments by March 31, 2014. If you do not feel this document should advance, please state your reasons why.



Please take some time out to read this document and provide us your feedback (it is a very short draft).



Some history:



We had done a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-load-balancing-00 back in early 2013 and while we considered it to have sufficient consensus, there were comments that required a new revision and given the long gap between the last call and the revised document, we are doing another last call.



Tomek is the document shepherd.



Regards,



Bernie & Tomek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email