Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 93CDC21F867B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 iegBHo8qZLvz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 44BA021F867A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.216.172]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob108.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUD4s2bhu//T8cRUlSaDK0syCKvbarBua@postini.com; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:14 PDT
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so488111qca.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=iJPlmXADKSKyedW/LbUieXsvjGX1nf6lyRuMrbHua88=; b=R+PBNO3R1Pr2XtEmEy9X01q17gxBW+XLlp1HB+20g2amt+d5gJVPcMLUW2k5QzLTiY QpAUTtiNTer/lZiH3TyA6po64nQG53FB9FvuamOOaMZCyu3+zhpCBAuX29kf0xejpj6V ZxAVIQhHFavnoeIxDfr96ilt5nSwBo+9DoBl6VOweEImKK85w31rdXd60+ILEeoZ2UTr 80GxsCoBNun/gMKFwjt+gDHcz48ZyYzYJZIlIIuKaLgZ7niWtLTXPSc2dFd55db8jF/i HnSAgqwYDPigIMBPW8TiUBwq32FP2qHszJyj0Y6Kj0tD+Ms/2KL/sM200xwwDXilfHUb DQrw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.214.67 with SMTP id gz3mr4065108qab.70.1346251992807; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.32.4 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:53:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf300fb319cf394704c868b777"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk2hmRkL0K9uwY5Dzgk143VR1DPQOCdRdug6h4eOpJdF3GFNSYOQ67oPG/is4pBw0pfsZ0W
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 14:53:16 -0000

Regarding DUIDs, what I do wonder about is DUID-EN.  How many devices out
there actually use it (I have not encountered any as yet), and if they do,
how variable are the first 10-12 bytes of the data that the vendor is
choosing?   We could still skip the DUID type, but the enterprise ID will
stil have some variability across the entire population (I suppose unless
the DHCP servers are deployed in an entirely homogenous network).


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Looks fine to me ... you beat me to doing this draft.
>
> One thought I had, especially regarding the DUID-UUID, was to drop the
> first two octets (DUID-Type) from the hashing as that allows coverage of
> the full UUID. Also, the DUID-Type field hardly seems worth hashing - as
> there's unlikely to be much, if any, variability in that data (at best the
> values would be 00-01, 00-02, 00-03, or 00-04 today).
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Andre Kostur
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:40 PM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
>
> Dear all:
>
> I have submitted a new I-D updating RFC 3074 to apply to DHCPv6.
>
> The text is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kostur-dhc-loadbv6-00.txt
>
> Comments and suggestions welcome.   I am looking to have the WG take
> this on as a work item.
>
> --
> Andre Kostur
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>



-- 
 *Andre Kostur*
Senior Product Design Engineer
*P:* 604-678-2864
*E:* akostur@incognito.com
*Toll-Free:* 1-800-877-1856


*F:* 604-678-2864
*VoIP:* sip:864@sip.incognito.com

[image: Incognito Software Inc.] <http://www.incognito.com>

 <http://www.incognito.com/company/events>