IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02 - Respond by May 18

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 23A8F1A03A4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 LDzjsmI0u0a1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9681A01AC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7411B82A4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241D119005C; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.67.243] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:33:52 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfCp31YnR1p+AaET=_MU6mBL1hytnp43gt+CHrr5Fw_0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:33:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DE89DC07-ABAD-463F-884D-030A1C015AEC@nominum.com>
References: <535FEDAD.5010103@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqen37j5UCsKZj6syVyvk2Xed4V_xGp-t4xY8shjmS+H5g@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B008430@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <4F2473AB-E8F7-4620-874C-3DCA59E70DE5@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE431FB@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00BAC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9A6A9452-AF57-4EE1-9401-E0CE26922E6B@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE438BE@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4891B713-5C8E-414A-99D7-64869C2E6F3A@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc+qofsHEHZyuG7UotHmZ170OuFoUzz13hz7Rj_8V5FsA@mail.gmail.com> <87A01A92-7517-40A4-8DD0-EE29AADA4AF6@nominum.com> <CAJE_bqeKYoRzVxSgJHg2Ud6H2qEZGaEdFyD=4Ps84NTFyOdELA@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00EF3B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <074EF8DF-6404-4D90-B56C-6955A3939A6D@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00F1F6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9EDC6F15-62FA-42B4-A145-94CEFAAE2918@nominum.com> <CAJE_bqfCp31YnR1p+AaET=_MU6mBL1hytnp43gt+CHrr5Fw_0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/TYJRPekbCzmnZ-pZZlniLx942vU
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02 - Respond by May 18
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: <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, 07 May 2014 20:33:57 -0000

On May 7, 2014, at 3:25 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> So, in the end, it seems I was wrong:
> as you said this option won't be necessary for DHCPv6 (still not sure
> if it's "harmful" though as stated above, but that's not important at
> this point).

I may have overstated the point.   Fragmentation is messy and presents an attack surface, so I suspect it's considered even less safe to pass through firewalls than ICMP Packet Too Big messages.   But you're right that it's not quite at the level of "harmful" to rely on it.

In any case, thanks for raising this.   I think it's a useful discussion.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email