IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 20 August 2012 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.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 15B5821F86C9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zA1uW8h9kTUh for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196721F86CE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so1768551eaa.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=TgrUlhRnzygwRWwCcff6SEYTlm926h2o1UF9GOkwi98=; b=SFPif7ttOhQDsJ/fihNOnw49bX7LFuvrt8lBKtd4fj2q5h3umMJNEdq5JJHKiG6tLv eIwfbyetiXP8c16a/Z91OwSVY3p4b+So/otV/RNFzL//A7YDAvauSoM6o5j5M8kARLKQ VIgOsDMoM2zeQNvHHZlFUSkJuy6HNrTswU+eJnPXCX77gLOCTNWc1m9zoXmgzjRZxbCi 5MS2AAWtElUSzMSG9SwF66Xxg6Miln5alx0V4LfA6n2Sl8tXGJ0yV02D5itS0FhudP/v FkVdXcO6rDL/gEzlH5zqaRfyt/HLnfPt1qVF9O3HzF+40+GS4mLqux7CGboROvilscef AcYg==
Received: by 10.14.224.4 with SMTP id w4mr7900902eep.21.1345453578982; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-112-132.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u47sm40020688eeo.9.2012.08.20.02.06.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA35FC1E-8127-420A-B5A3-6A6AB972CBB3"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC52AAA5.A35F%wbeebee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:06:17 +0200
Message-Id: <2C36D999-17A8-4EC0-ACDD-5599C8B86C95@employees.org>
References: <CC52AAA5.A35F%wbeebee@cisco.com>
To: Wes Beebee <wbeebee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:06:33 -0000

Wes,

> Why MUST the client ignore an Advertise message with no bindings?
> What if stateful and stateless options are carried in the same message?
> Does this mean the stateless options will be ignored just because the
> stateful 
> Options failed?
> 
> In general, I think this draft addresses an important problem that needs
> to be 
> solved urgently.  We need to think through carefully the consequences of
> the proposed 
> solutions, however.

how much do you want the protocol to change? that's how a client behaves today.
a client could fall-back to "stateless" DHCP, if it couldn't find any servers that would reply to its request for an address. is that a change we want to make?

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email