IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 21:19 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 EE7F0127698 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 0RpJYBNqk9QV for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 0F4BD126C83 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r39so6191915qtr.13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TrA/PuwGUAU1XkEB6J5paPXITXVhtvIomGw2DmmKE2E=; b=um+6s1K8XRNpuPaJwFPcdyVvgdypKBQnBIkC5aeqC7lsM9JAfvw5jXY2hszQtJ5UNG 51mZZIANpg95eH0i7y/jKHNXv/1k5z1MbuCNbR0U77idVIQSeS5ZPaGhzxbzHYGUjR9A rBcWHbfqGPwE3JwkFjQwfCVJT+Koy+JWEYmQtHOBvx22z7pLu65jJovuR4hpw+SI0BWy e8xmr5QPzMoD1FshuQPXe/FTP0YFlfcVlvMi+OVNr2XVLENMXZ3qc9eUTDwIgQwfM3yK UNXJ0/NAwGP5L59ivXZrnDbydjL5axoInDov7fYqWkeFE4ubxL2Opooem0I2ued8XMl9 Oq9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TrA/PuwGUAU1XkEB6J5paPXITXVhtvIomGw2DmmKE2E=; b=IkmHHq5Po/HmH2rhTxFVxuEXjOgtETXl7ASRVRzEADqazyKOu/KrhtX6MWmfcJXQ+b E1BkkNs/kUZ41WjXNxhahvzZXw4SDK8ngOBmREyWJOgC6SQ/j8Ga7j/YNVHneApAiA8d dFHd5vdtyHFYLtaJfeyw2InAz6gLpTO6eNIQQqGU4GWvelhrz5TTSDeq/u1ZGF5GybqU 6kvZwEpoNdp9B6TS9pV3124/6r9lIk0G40dHNRvPaAAJe45KdUWEX+jGDAk+Vz8pqo1i 8Sb8tb7wlsYIq/kK3Sts+pU8bsFDTZnXle1sA6ZWAai0xmobwKjC9riovj5b32IEBmzE xrMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK3dxSr6zdW9LEqtWR11sJpxviBhbc4xyK/fkPKN5xPcGZTHBvl tS+GJ5SzdbY5sqLSSGRzxSS0OA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaJDSyQ9IgiWBBaUYvJLA2XT73tmv+WDM1Ht/WxWpiVyJ0M5O58xMoS99T9153v1bJUWgfS+A==
X-Received: by 10.200.17.10 with SMTP id c10mr354573qtj.301.1511990345235; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cavall.lan (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u123sm1835095qkd.71.2017.11.29.13.19.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <151198969282.31355.16877065112899804068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:19:03 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200CE2CC-D6D1-40BA-843A-1193DFFDEE74@fugue.com>
References: <151198969282.31355.16877065112899804068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/SLPshU9sJTeR5_S31juX2yDXSvg>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:19:08 -0000

Ben, the idea is that this is a very targeted approach for SDNs, not something that makes sense as a general update to the DHCP base specifications.   Since relays and servers are generally within the same administrative domain, there is little danger of actual interop issues—the operator is going to be customizing these settings very deliberately.   We also tend to assume that the DHCP server is pretty easy to update compared to relays or clients, so the fact that an updated relay might not work with a non-updated server isn't a major issue.   This isn't like TLS 1.3 where the server and the middleboxes are operated by agencies unknown to each other.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email