IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 27 November 2013 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 E987C1AC829 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:18:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 KYoQPyFt6KLb for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7495E1A1F1A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:dd97:4873:5d32:1565]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D650640393; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:18:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52960D33.4040501@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:18:11 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ian.farrer@telekom.de, dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <CEBBC722.9D48D%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
In-Reply-To: <CEBBC722.9D48D%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
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, 27 Nov 2013 15:18:24 -0000

Le 2013-11-27 10:10, ian.farrer@telekom.de a écrit :
>> If this makes sense, then I would rename the options:
>> s/ENABLE/MULTICAST/ and s/SERVER/UNICAST/. And maybe go further and kill
>> OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE, and just put the multicast address in the
>> payload of OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER.
>
> [ian] IIRC, putting the multicast address into the option was discussed in
> the authoring process, but was rejected as being too error prone.

How is a multicast address more error prone than a unicast address? Any 
network admin would immediately notice the error when "it doesn't work". 
And once it's in place, you don't play with it every day. IMHO the 
reduced complexity is definitely worth it.

Does anyone have a convincing argument for this?

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email