Re: [dhcwg] whether/how to support Confirm with sedhcpv6

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Sun, 26 March 2017 14:44 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 797BE129444 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 07:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 YDIlm8tYGlKC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ED1B129405 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2025; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490539491; x=1491749091; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gZVP9fYSc+r2A0jeuC7wwehEOtOoLWVQUL4S3qsj6zg=; b=KG/v5ldsZR4nmI+3mWYCOgrDvgwgiFl3/xe/zrSf9vcMjACdERxPXbZa uHaYbbXoYlsSXoAxYknzlxGPt5rQR6t0JYaZVH4qRcNrMYXLelVuD9IC8 1k1CF1z8dLRITLQKPLjXWM1+KEIACcrZ4opnOkSwaJzRsV4784bU4UokU A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BiBQCe0tdY/5BdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1RhgQuDYptcgx2SLoIOHwuFeAKDKUAXAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECAQEBHwFMCwULAgEIGAEDCxoDAicLJQIEDgWJfwgOjUKdVgGCKoo3AQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBCIdLgmqEPhaDAzGCMQWcWwGSS5ExgWuReQE?= =?us-ascii?q?hAjSBBFkVQREBhkZ1iXgBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,225,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="401474390"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2017 14:44:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2QEiomQ027176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:44:50 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:44:50 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:44:50 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
CC: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] whether/how to support Confirm with sedhcpv6
Thread-Index: AQHSpj3Fn2WlavvNXUqtanr4SSkvDaGnMo+V
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:44:49 +0000
Message-ID: <3566F64B-D709-4DF3-9A5F-7648DA8FC45E@cisco.com>
References: <CAJE_bqetH-MvY1RRGXvyy3t8WDa9AUDcvXM6jW0aGP=uJC60hg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqetH-MvY1RRGXvyy3t8WDa9AUDcvXM6jW0aGP=uJC60hg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/TltjbAVFf-aXF3EsZoSmICzuq5A>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] whether/how to support Confirm with sedhcpv6
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: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:44:53 -0000

Hi:

Good point ... I was thinking that encrypted Confirm (or Rebind) would be fine - if still on same link (or at least server) it would work just fine. Otherwise, client times out and is left to use other mechanisms (RS/RA)?

But using Information-Request is interesting. Wonder if doing both or falling back to Information-Request after short period (note that if client determined it needed new leases, it would do Information-Request anyway).

We can add to discussion at Thursday DHC WG meeting as we hoped to get some issues regarding draft that could use discussion.

- Bernie (from iPhone)

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 9:32 AM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> While reviewing ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21, I've realized one thing that
> probably requires a discussion: whether/how to use sedhcpv6 for
> Confirm.  To avoid distraction I'm raising it separately from the full
> review I'm planning to submit later.
> 
> When a client might want to send a Confirm, it should be reasonably
> possible that the client has moved and would be talking to a different
> server.  In that case it doesn't make sense to encrypt the Confirm
> message and encapsulate it in an Encryption-query message; the actual
> server would silently discard it, and the client can't tell whether
> it's because it has moved or the message is simply lost.  So I think
> we need some special case handling here.  A couple of choices I can
> think of are:
> - say sedhcpv6 can't support Confirm (I don't like this option)
> - have the client perform a separate information-request/reply
>  exchange to see if the currently recognized server and its public
>  key are still usable (if not, the client should basically not send
>  the Confirm, following the sense of RFC7844).
> 
> (There may be other options.)
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg