Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 03:29 UTC
Return-Path: <volz@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 F1A2121F856F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:29:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Op3O97+LjS1s for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C77021F8550 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:29:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=23812; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329362987; x=1330572587; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=NiH0xqBwtFt+dWGDmfPbP3FDvbORWGsLlLi6pcO+1q4=; b=XUqAizLgB1IBvK0r/QXs5KVJb3JbV566jIM1wyVTQxV57AL4WoNboGiq c0DdZsVCLmdtX+FGqpBaCpzistg+a4kiEr5NXuB+c8FTY5IURSSkDWo0t RqNTWZek+lD/iBiVwciykpPDk3Kdg69roDJdERb/m93kiCJ35cXDv0aXC k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFACd3PE+tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDDoI/rh2BB4FyAQEBBAEBAQ8BCREDHiALEAIBCA4DAwEBAQsCAQMQBwEGASAGChUJCAEBBAESCAEUBAGHZppxAZ5PiESDBQEBAQMIAQEBBQ0IAgIKCAQDAgQyg2FZCgIDAgEIAgqCTWMEiE2XfIceVg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,426,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="59320472"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2012 03:29:46 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1G3TkNc006429; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:29:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:29:46 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCEC5B.3B13642A"
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:29:46 -0600
Message-ID: <D9B5773329187548A0189ED6503667890AEA2AEC@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAByx+R0ua0D_o4CgDD21A-ZUJh2JQHqLYrW935s7tZnesmrzVA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm
Thread-Index: AczsTh5w/jDKqkQmRUGXbqTC63DDVwAEy/fA
References: <CAByx+R0h5VFROEVfHG12eAN9gHefDp4P4yK_m=UNQSZ_R7YQcQ@mail.gmail.com><3044811E-D5D2-44D0-AFC4-DE1514CC6A38@iol.unh.edu> <CAByx+R0ua0D_o4CgDD21A-ZUJh2JQHqLYrW935s7tZnesmrzVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Huan Huan <shawngespan@gmail.com>, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2012 03:29:46.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B154310:01CCEC5B]
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 16 Feb 2012 03:29:52 -0000
I don't really see what's wrong with EITHER a REBIND or CONFIRM (or even both, one for IA_PD and one for address). Not really sure why RFC 3633 didn't permit a Confirm. However, if one does a strict read of the standards, the two (Confirm for address, Renew for PD) is what a client SHOULD do. But, there's no reason a prefix can't be confirmed just as easily as an address. Perhaps Ole had a reason for this in RFC 3633, but alas it is not documented (at least that I could see). And, a Rebind (for an address) at any time isn't really "wrong". For a compliance test, you are probably forced to follow the standards as that is the only thing that you can assure (a server may be strict in following RFC 3633 and consider a Confirm with prefixes "wrong"). (Cisco Network Registrar will deal with all of the possibilities.) - Bernie From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huan Huan Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:56 PM To: Timothy Winters Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm I don't think so. 2012/2/15 Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Hi Huan, Is it ok to transmit just a Renew message containing both the IA_NA and IA_PD when the link goes down? Regards, Tim On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Huan Huan <shawngespan@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Tim, I think CE Router may transmit Confirm msg containing the assigned IA_NA and Renew msg containing the assigned IA_PD separately. BR, Huan 2012/2/15 <dhcwg-request@ietf.org> If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send dhcwg mailing list submissions to dhcwg@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to dhcwg-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at dhcwg-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of dhcwg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04.txt (internet-drafts@ietf.org) 2. DHCP Renew vs Confirm (Timothy Winters) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:40:41 -0800 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04.txt Message-ID: <20120214104041.23040.30559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF. Title : Forcerenew Nonce Authentication Author(s) : David Miles Wojciech Dec James Bristow Roberta Maglione Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-02-14 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) FORCERENEW allows for the reconfiguration of a single host by forcing the DHCP client into a Renew state on a trigger from the DHCP server. In Forcerenew Nonce Authentication the server sends a nonce to the client on the initial DHCP ACK that is used for subsequent validation of a FORCERENEW message. This document updates RFC 3203. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04.t xt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04.tx t ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:43:50 -0500 From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP Renew vs Confirm Message-ID: <C0CA95B6-1743-4D37-9BCC-D104453EBF9A@iol.unh.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, While testing some CE Router implementations we have noticed a interesting behavior that is within the specifications but not clearly documented. I wanted to get the working group thoughts on this. Currently when a CE Router acting as a DHCP client, assigned both IA_NA and IA_PD, is unplugged from the network. When reattached to the link the DHCP client transmits a DHCP Renew containing both the IA_NA and the IA_PD. 3315 Section 18.1.2 says that when link goes down a DHCP client implementation should transmit a DHCP Confirm message containing the assigned IA_NA. 3633 Section 12.1 doesn't allow the use of the Confirm message. It states that DHCP Renew message, containing the assigned IA_PD, should be used when the link goes down. According to the specifications a DHCP client should retransmit DHCP Confirm and DHCP Renew when link goes up. The behavior we are seeing is the DHCP client transmits a DHCP renew containing both the IA_NA and IA_PD. This behavior isn't causing interoperability issues as all the servers we have tried still respond properly to the DHCP Renew messages. Is it ok when a DHCP client loses link for it to transmit one DHCP Renew message? Regards, Tim UNH-IOL ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg End of dhcwg Digest, Vol 94, Issue 13 ************************************* -- Huan Huan -- Huan Huan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Huan Huan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Huan Huan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Huan Huan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Jean-Francois.TremblayING
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Huan Huan
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confirm Bernie Volz (volz)
- [dhcwg] 答复: Re: dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs Confi… shawngespan
- Re: [dhcwg] 答复: Re: dhcwg Digest, DHCP Renew vs C… Ted Lemon