IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gnocuil@gmail.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 48DF51ADBC9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 z6QvLQfPLCi4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-x234.google.com (mail-qe0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E131A1F5F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ne12so9300969qeb.11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dpaBu3JAYzvCT/vhDWjYcg0uNiuI9pJepeW3Y1H9m+o=; b=Yrp1KFp7owk6hd9+rVd2dCWZgbnutiQNMqoscu7hHrE0HzevyTZwp9bPKjGpgrFgQh JgFGvmU1cz13v4ZKWpM+IoyrrGf7wSiaeQy7dD5QtP8YvuF/UC8NKwTIW2x8Gev903EY 9GeHg0v4c+/cNVLecu+ziUaalO/azaUZmfFlklFimk9NNuKEC54CRi/dlFF589Sm0R70 HbfUofm7kf+wEfTSTCyWY59aeQB3gmyBW0i1GzxVV1U3cYGDkFW3g+MVfrobo/X7r7AP ICe31YC7X4sIz7nLlK3wPm7xrgGZXuUAW96G/B8CM2kPhWj6piz6iQmNu2euL0XzInxl fUpg==
X-Received: by 10.224.25.8 with SMTP id x8mr78545948qab.77.1385653441812; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.161.103 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:43:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6D0BACEB-D945-413B-98D9-3333092F45F6@cisco.com>
References: <CEBB74DD.9C090%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <124F1F54-5997-46D9-A6F1-54F94E3D6423@gmail.com> <5295FCDD.9000300@viagenie.ca> <51308BAA-5F33-44B9-AB72-6AE42BA5E11D@gmail.com> <5296356D.90405@viagenie.ca> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADC24C4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADC25C8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAF+sHxHSrZ5zEXrn0RpZqCUcfJ3xiisgFYKLCo5adBcMP3rGzA@mail.gmail.com> <6D0BACEB-D945-413B-98D9-3333092F45F6@cisco.com>
From: Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:43:41 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF+sHxGCk0hG2U+qMc+b=uk90c+c-4_WTJp-mxLLe-Vx_tuwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2dc3c2e5ed504ec3e95c6"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:44:05 -0000

Hi Bernie,

Sorry, I thought you were talking about reuse 4o6 Server Address option.

If regular DHCPv6 process is not affected by reusing Server Unicast option,
I think it's a good solution.

Cong

2013/11/28 Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>

>  Cong, I don't understand this. Server-unicast option can only specify
> one address.
>
>  The 4o6 client has two lists - the "broadcast" list and the "unicast"
> list. When v4 packet is to be "broadcast", the "broadcast" list is used.
> When unicast and the unicast list is not empty, it is used; otherwise
> broadcast list is used. Broadcast list comes from new 4o6 option or the v6
> multicast address. Unicast list is empty unless the server's v4 lease that
> was selected sent a server-unicast option.
>
>  Yes, if v4 client sends broadcast, packet could go to multiple servers
> but that's what happens with native v4.
>
>  Anyway, just a thought to reduce traffic for v4 unicast case.
>
>  - Bernie (from iPad)
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 2:32 AM, "Cong Liu" <gnocuil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Hi Bernie,
>
> 2013/11/28 Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
>
>> Here's a question we can also ponder ...
>>
>> Should we perhaps allow the server to send back the Server-Unicast option
>> to tell the 4o6 Client where it can send unicast (DHCPv4) packets to? This
>> would allow DHCPv4 unicast packets to be sent directly to the server (of
>> course inside a BOOTREQUESTV6 message).
>>
>
>  Assume IPv6 lease time is 100s, and IPv4 lease time is 200s. Then the
> 4o6 Client receives a Server-Unicast option (which may contains 10
> unicast addresses) every 100s, and a Server-Unicast option (which
> contains 1 unicast address) every 200s. I think it adds more complexity for
> client to deal with the same option from different servers (DHCPv6 /
> DHCP4o6).
>
>  Best Regards,
> Cong
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email