IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Sun, 16 September 2012 00:16 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 2ED1E21F84A5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pN3xIN0uCTJE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC0C21F84A1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1629; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347754597; x=1348964197; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6kJihSsR/coglYWGNSabJGgrEpd9CZ2ke9UnKFw4e8c=; b=NKeXTMrxuFUksMme++SdhsQHZbJrM1UjUfaj4DEdhvXXJBFPlrQQYi7Q 4GSwwf/FvE1kLoUD3mfoIFkM8gqIakjaP0CkSmVUIg46/+awUDGTFeoOo uyMH1JVLu65tW9DCBehxm2uElNpnOnf52qR6V5erAHakJDhg9UhxSaPHq E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABAZVVCtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABFvA6BB4IgAQEBAwESASc/BQcEAgEIEQQBAR8QMh0IAgQOBSKHWAaadp8tiyGGCGADlWKOOIFpgmY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,428,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="118985895"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2012 00:16:37 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8G0Gb30029278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:16:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.159]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:16:36 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpd/JdswgAB/xoD//5GrgIAMmf4QgACCejg=
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:16:36 +0000
Message-ID: <E7445290-EE7D-40A8-AA12-42CAA0EC8A7F@cisco.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <21C54D57-372F-46B0-892B-398919992546@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F857F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>, <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B8908A93F@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B8908A93F@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19184.002
x-tm-as-result: No--40.347800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:16:38 -0000

I have included Ralph. Not sure exactly which situation will cause an Information-Request storm (just other-config)? I generally would expect a server, if it exists, to respond to Information-Request even if it returns "no" config info.

But yes should be discussed with respect to Ralphs's draft.

- Bernie

On Sep 15, 2012, at 12:36 PM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> Bernie,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:18 PM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: dhc WG; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh (shemant); Ole Troan (otroan)
> Subject: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
> 
> 
>> Ole's answer was that basically this is how RFC 3315 operates today and we didn't want to change this (we are fixing what happens if IA_NA and IA_PD are >requested in a Solicit and only one of these is available) -- which is different than the no bindings at all case. RFC 3315 basically expects clients to >use Information-Request in this case.
> 
> I agree with use of the Information-Request message rather than changing the behavior for Request/Reply processing.  Now, when the Information-Request message is sent to the server, don't we expect an Information-Request storm at the server akin to a Solicit storm because INF_MAX_RT is 120 secs?  If yes,   the SOL_MAX_RT is also 120 secs which is getting changed in Ralph's SOL_MAX_RT draft.  So shouldn't Ralph's document now also address the INF_MAX_RT if the document does not already do so?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email