IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@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 95C4F21F857A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Ca+5hYEF0diN for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19F621F8578 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=5433; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346260296; x=1347469896; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=VKC9YCP1PY6DutP73O3Dg52hte8oc1rLCQ6L7koU+uY=; b=kJhyEKO2GadLnupviuXUVRpciCCCcNqm7ic4IXkjEc/eVFUMkuDpnXd8 qH2+UpyIlzL6fPh1xv4Bq2QT/h3/aiA/06bI5Y9XhJYJWYZ1B1JtmxY7T T0qXZeEbMHTgRs5vqvmvSwwagvhklpArKuS0DIUbg9jwYnnDwjQkC2N5E 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAVNPlCtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFgkq4KYEHgiABAgQSAWYSAQgRAwECKDkUCQgCBAENBSKHa5tMoDWLCBQBhkQDlVaOLoFngmOBWAE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,335,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="116473957"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2012 17:11:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7THBan8008119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:11:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.159]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:11:35 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNhTu/UoFdx/X410eNxzRZgWx7TpdwPQBQgAD4XwCAAB9FgIAAA4kAgAABYID//79rAA==
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:11:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CC63C4E4.1BF7%volz@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [161.44.65.136]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19146.006
x-tm-as-result: No--24.853000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC63C4E41BF7volzciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:11:37 -0000

I think the reason for the limit was:

  *   Most v4 identifiers were short
  *   Longer identifiers incur more processing cost (though that is likely a minor issue)
  *   As Ted has pointed out, it is likely only 1 or perhaps 2 bits that end up being 'useful'

But, I do agree that the best is just to remove this restriction in the new v6 draft and say that the entire DUID is hashed (the DUID is limited to 128 bytes but hopefully few, if any, use anything that long).

- Bernie

From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com<mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:02 PM
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com<mailto:akostur@incognito.com>>
Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com<mailto:bs7652@att.com>>, "dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>, Cisco Employee <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

On Aug 29, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com<mailto:akostur@incognito.com>> wrote:
Does anybody recall why the original load balancing had the 16 byte
restriction?

Nope.   It might be worth visiting the question of whether the hash algorithm is the right one.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email