Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 18 July 2017 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619D4131A69 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lUy_o8VuMk6 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A2F12ECC0 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u5so8538064pgq.3 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xPN1df5QWsgGeZ3DOyNt2UZz/tRuotn/YGU0hudjK/4=; b=SW3cQ7YSauUCNxh7OHa2qUjredBTrkSTWuN9+O3yORKAuS47UMsKe6ujrImhf+aqgg Wm4nlJcR+UDtnIG1/3109ofdsZktq+jZzlXiZ8VGPr5/sUBhAl36Cov19ilLT4j/yYJX ckJ0s8Crl3bZ1FM+tCVE/KMty1v9ZrCgUd1gLzCd6gcFRHJm2bl+bzStoVR697YZgNiK Jm/jdutruJKarS0NazGT0Xd2EOQ1usMimykqr98tJneKIAjvKNKVcTBkJwun6Sjm6mGD Oo92hmfAuTEHrVeozzFxUPMKa167uelzaviEwptLUC2dgn/UIlFjD4foxcQrhCeE9sSO zi8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xPN1df5QWsgGeZ3DOyNt2UZz/tRuotn/YGU0hudjK/4=; b=Y0uXWzyIPgVMgLiaaBWdGuupLIbmK7wZHd3GnM+uewXZmCqKxispdlf06nXyneDefK 8bdyeiQhhrocgodhb3YrBZR+gwa1fdvbtNN9IXRdihJEkFB8DUp6wv+40awUKOuoDPsG wx9Y22X2iqiKHE4U4CdKy+ylHD8lZmpxtYmaVShUPs0v7wAuYim3mkgbmqcDKlICgy0X 0ERrH+zX8VO0wneb0yTe/2QfNt6DDWRAksauRjsWgMRRxDdL7Il+ePdqTKeBMgJ1XBzl /he7lrHsgEbnpFUxsmZYi2Nfh9DCNp8OIEYlSbQGz4G09IHOEugmzszPzlc8ZNkjnUlM kBlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111/xp9JWT/X1VYuDonRiZbDNWj2RIO7MnAnvYAQrlxgENRvXDJK EPz2KwAKUeqx47mUO68a7FXneHFpHQ1V
X-Received: by with SMTP id y6mr54849pgr.122.1500365875641; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:17:14 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Vízdal Aleš <>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <>, dhcwg <>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082381440d1f25055493273b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:18:01 -0000

I believe what Alexandre was proposing was not that we re-cast 3gpp specs
as RFCs, but rather that we add text to 3315bis that explicitly says what
hop limit to use, and that the hop-limit should be what I would describe as
"incorrect."​   I realize that this is a somewhat judgmental way of
describing it, but I don't know a different way.   If in fact the 3GPP
architecture requires this, that's a bug, and it's not clear to me that
RFC3315 is the right place to address that bug.

But I'd really like for us to try to figure out whether this is in fact a
bug, or whether it's just an artifact of the way that the ISC DHCP client
is transmitting DHCP packets, which can be addressed by fixing that, rather
than by updating RFC3315 to require behavior that is effectively a
violation of the internet architecture.