IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Options for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 10 November 2015 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48331B3480 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 01:13:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 b0iREIabvsNM for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 01:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor36.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453EA1B3482 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 01:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 61A6FC05E9; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:13:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.66]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3F3A11A0061; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:13:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:13:20 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHCP Options for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP)
Thread-Index: AQHRG5WcehkSxIJLUUikUsIOe2DAYZ6U9fUQ
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:13:18 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C9AD6A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <D2660C4C.7A833%dan.seibel@telus.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C9AC74@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <m2pozifd2f.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <m2pozifd2f.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/PcP5sUWJl_7LCNve9rXKqsLyneU>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Options for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 10 Nov 2015 09:13:24 -0000

Hi Niall,

Wouldn't be better to fix the broken client implementation?  

Relaxing the behavior at the server side leads to another question: how to ensure that a broken client will correctly interpreted an option it didn't ask for? 

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Niall O'Reilly [mailto:niall.oreilly@ucd.ie]
> Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2015 09:56
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : Dan Seibel; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Options for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP
> (MPTCP)
> 
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:56:50 +0000,
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "The DHCP server MUST NOT reply with the DHCP MPTCP Concentrator
> > option unless the client has explicitly requested for it."
> 
>   Writing this as "SHOULD NOT" would allow scope for supporting
>   broken clients.  For some other option, which I can't recall
>   just now, I've sometimes needed to "adjust" the Parameter
>   Request List on receipt at the server, so as to include an
>   option which the client needed but hadn't included.
> 
>   Best regards,
>   Niall O'Reilly
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email