IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 14 July 2017 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 2C40713171D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 KbI7qH9R4_Uz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x234.google.com (mail-pg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 981761316E3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id u62so49343444pgb.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5DU9iHiLtYODrM3431W7Pqu74cI0R7aSCB1wHqJaQaM=; b=hVPrl5PqrsBzEae+TIMMnfndw0QxWNFvl5fg1OGdXzEKfuBucSIpETVYvE7A9kXuM/ 0iF4xVXjwrqaHXJaclP3ifTwPJH77/Soye7aEy4owruAv3R+P9Gconjpd9CMZGGXjSQ3 8EhuMmnxkMxC/xIAoQq/g1niuCwXKSSFmgUuMuxXrcxJo0eBQXBdVMKmR83Wyz/xkZd6 TC6lxZ3bYCAbE4+IX6j2Gd+ExAWc53U0csr9OLsweTOZhZNLC939ha430WFL19MuNpoU dWt4k0CnuQMcuz5aZo5KW9SgaSmFH0NdCUHFQecAxA7I+JvJ1UPUnjcMQky1X42gkveG Y7PA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5DU9iHiLtYODrM3431W7Pqu74cI0R7aSCB1wHqJaQaM=; b=GsaPbqRb2krsHVTVLG0+iV02sDNowu0OPanDVa1LBQMmsaUv3stn0dzwGWAshEGtsN wvMx7T6dLgBIpki7GPrsmKJyPw6MSwosJZG2j1s0o31usaL76DXgwVLwjn9LFucchJDR Nv8cJIyYtjUxSorFNVLpv9rDw4G2xrXpfE8qNVRUklIsrmMCMgHDf5gb9oTHg6BEVT2M LJnAYZagXaV+kxWTfU9SbSA8NQqVK+GEt7h4b0EJop4/vLuVWq9qYgB6FdylDg7kxTTt RVdZ109PlvePWwIBMlHwIFuQAxUgaQCG1YV+RWthIGCj9nmZYGtzbetGAQkVNGnOx+ws cPKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111zTq0go0TIW+rQB8rBBMXsEb7UrMew4KBhP1ZtPdHzF61eEdx4 h2uRuAgfrPsL7mHYOf1x1iN6rje/kM6V
X-Received: by 10.84.132.39 with SMTP id 36mr17522553ple.237.1500057355154; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6f811cd2-61f1-05c2-1ede-b6933fa1dbb3@gmail.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com> <3285281858d043649d507b6bda7b8646@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <1f94b780-59c1-42ce-936d-0c8a71143444@gmail.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <5fdc7054-7012-30ee-dec7-618f3cd3646f@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=8Aibz0qWib=RiCr510i6DeGGZSOFNnWG0h-mguUzgqA@mail.gmail.com> <6f811cd2-61f1-05c2-1ede-b6933fa1dbb3@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:35:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=0_U3en3zAJbO0fMxKv32iFYLcTVqn6bO5zm6XjT3+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c12f714cc0a3a05544b518f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/OVTAjBQx7gKUcNK4TFLEUzFJmTg>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:35:57 -0000

So are the DHCP clients you are talking about setting the IP header hop
count to 0/1, or the DHCP header hop-count field to 0/1?   That is, what is
the behavior you are concerned about, and why do you think it might cause a
problem in this case?

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Le 13/07/2017 à 23:14, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>
>> On Jul 13, 2017 16:01, "Alexandre Petrescu" <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     My oppinion is to make DHCP spec Hop Limit > 1.  In order to make sure
>>     that the encap/decap of DHCP Solicit in IPv4 GTP happening on a
>> cellular
>>     link does not drop it to 0 upon decap.
>>
>>
>> If a link local sourced multicast with a hop limit of one is dropped
>> between sender and receiver, ip is broken on that link, ne c'est pas?
>>
>
> If that link is a real link then yes - ip is broken on that link.
>
> But if the link is a virtual link - like when on a tunnel - then it may be
> that tunnel works or no.
>
> Alex
>
>
>>

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email