IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 16:06 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 98F1C12D84B; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:06:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 d2rKcSNLjq3R; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2C712D82E; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:05:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12325; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517933158; x=1519142758; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=TmvwWR6+7Tm15tfL7Mw2AP8sIvV7BWR/AC5CB7pruQc=; b=XE+O/SRuMSEcpj3CMeq1NNP1pOogc2oW96ym76M+wo2epMiRVinZKcj1 by4WA0dOLt61Av+nYEokZPCChMxuVfHN3Sk9Dq2NUY6e5kqkZw3Egwkeo qarsuf1UdwjJM/Pgt4X3VI2UdkdmdpmKpT7z9LjmATIA8pnqi6OUiZgTW E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CtAABU0Xla/4MNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJZeGZwMo1/jjGTdYVVFYIDCiOFGIJeVBgBAQEBAQEBAQJrKIVXTBIBgQAmAQQBDQ2JSWQQuDOIfYF4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWEaoIVihwBAQOBMiaGEgWkLgKIGI1RlEWNcYliAhEZAYE7AR85gVBwFYMEhHaOe4EXAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,469,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="66542893"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2018 16:05:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w16G5vYk011221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:05:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:05:57 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:05:56 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure
Thread-Index: AdOfY6gaEFANtBC7Rt+MHUK/8rJcBw==
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:56 +0000
Message-ID: <a1104b1b903d4e319c59c1459dbfd701@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.34.37]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a1104b1b903d4e319c59c1459dbfd701XCHALN003ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/MxLk0TdplNyi_vmfsuc7tBtj7S4>
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:06:00 -0000

One issue that sadly was not addressed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 is what to do about Reconfigure message. There are two ways to deliver Reconfigure messages:


1.       Via the relay

2.       Via unicast to the client

If #1 is used (perhaps because the client and server do not have direct communication because of VPNs or for other reasons), what should the server do? Options are:


1.       Always use the standard port (547).

2.       Record the relay port and use that (since the relay will also be used). I would assume that this would be the "correct" behavior?

I'm not sure if we should (or can) put a hold on RFC-to-be to add something about this?

BTW: This would also have been a good reason to put the port number into the option ALWAYS. This avoids the server from having to record something "else" (the port number), since the server can just extract the value from the outermost (closest to server) Relay Port option.


-          Bernie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email