IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt

"Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ghalwasi@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 8D36021F8688 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 xDxy2pY1uamn for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65D321F85F7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3168; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348237680; x=1349447280; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0yYEEbPqvgd1sq3KoPRWiUj36lPbwPPHti5pNzCh6bo=; b=QgTSp0IpP1nM7M8PD2mjADA6fLzPUr1/TSbO6XuiqEGs7OYIc2DhcP3a y5I0092ERe8MdX2MbP4OIIVxSymIHQulTje2ejOzT+JVdZJ5tK9N9rOks EyOe1IojxVx1FTXrGSpd9QPhdihdKV0+pQKqnuC++mG3jJnKyNdDaaPXb Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAJ14XFCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABFDr4DgQiCIAEBAQMBAQEBDwEnNBAHBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoUCQcnCxQJCAEBBAESCBqHXQYLmTCgFYschUZgA6QdgWmCLDuCFw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,463,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="123986411"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2012 14:27:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8LERx5e030587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:27:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.33]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:27:59 -0500
From: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt
Thread-Index: Ac2X8ddMOw/OIH/tQHCVi0DiBXN4ZAANXS2AAAD+9gAACmhikP//stqAgABTGtA=
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:27:58 +0000
Message-ID: <90903C21C73202418A48BFBE80AEE5EB192609EE@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com>
References: <BF22E1BC-0E6B-4245-95C4-95E8B0F210B0@nominum.com> <p062408a3cc821c8f69ad@simon.thehobsons.co.uk> <5A94443D-DF8E-4AA3-888B-96AC97E45D23@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|54cdd79b989cbc48ef75bbf93b6c9609o8KExs03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5A94443D-DF8E-4AA3-888B-96AC97E45D23@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <90903C21C73202418A48BFBE80AEE5EB1926098B@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> <D23D07D9-01DC-4652-92C8-60FC24BFA9C0@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|6a1c01a28a1c05fe573a911b44d9b30co8KFLm03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D23D07D9-01DC-4652-92C8-60FC24BFA9C0@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|6a1c01a28a1c05fe573a911b44d9b30co8KFLm03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D23D07D9-01DC-4652-92C8-60FC24BFA9C0@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.142.105.209]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19200.001
x-tm-as-result: No--47.472200-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt
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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:28:01 -0000

Tim,

Sure, perhaps, I could change the present text to the following:-

"This specification does not specify the mechanism for DHCPv6 Server to find out link-layer address of the directly connected clients as a DHCP option as it can obtain it directly from the link-layer source address of the received DHCPv6 message"

Thanks,
Gaurav
-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:52 PM
To: dhc WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt

OK, perhaps clarify that then....  "as it can obtain it directly from the L2 header of the received DHCP message" ?

Tim

On 21 Sep 2012, at 15:16, "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Thanks for supporting the document.
> 
> I think the first text which you referred is mentioned in the "Problem Statement" where in we really don't have a way to find out the link-layer address form the "DHCPv6 message header/options." 
> 
> Whereas the next text (section 5) is talking about server extracting it from DHCPv6 message L2 header. Not from the DHCPv6 message/options.
> 
> Please let me know if you still find it confusing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gaurav
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:30 PM
> To: dhc WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This also has my support.  It would be something we would use in our deployment.
> 
> A little nit though...  
> 
> The text says:
> "Similarly DHCPv6 Relay or Server cannot glean client link-layer address from the contents of DHCPv6 message received."
> 
> 
> and then later in Section 5 the text that's been added in the latest version says:
> "This specification does not specify the mechanism for DHCPv6 Server to find out link-layer address of the directly connected clients as a DHCP option as it can obtain it directly from the received message."
> 
> This seems a bit contradictory - should the first text say "Similarly DHCPv6 Relay or DHCPv6 Server receiving a relayed message cannot glean"...?
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 21 Sep 2012, at 14:31, Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Looks good to me. Has my support.
>> 
>> --
>> Simon Hobson
>> 
>> Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed 
>> author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as 
>> Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email