Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8415 (6269)

Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> Thu, 03 September 2020 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@qacafe.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 4E3EA3A0F44 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.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 vuXPIcA8vw6d for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 100C83A0F43 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b19so4228827lji.11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Sep 2020 08:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tTYRnpx9d/Vjb1a2Pp2OInp4CArrcawMrggWgIuCwOQ=; b=ZS3ruQenDQm0hyAeLlvRMzBMuVTduXZC8bYyzGBTEJJNM1okN91dqTkxMhHY9nRBrg /P/iOuFzrcgkzUzwDyCcQcROHvMSQyTa/EGPQ7drEv8oB0L9r7xAf4uybDl9pzu1YPho K6iW5UxR8x1uz3xAJ9OUQFg3oKoTtzK/WFYio=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tTYRnpx9d/Vjb1a2Pp2OInp4CArrcawMrggWgIuCwOQ=; b=tIwpvtWw8TDMfrCUM024Lpb21IyfiQhKk3vcYuvrEg8ILFxP5iQGMdXBHvD444Iq/K KJA8X1qy1Jef24SJrjU0HFR25gzv9QLnjTIu0fXols5u6Kw6xENvDYlF1IQ4YNJOMm2d 5ubP8k/jhs6xiELfoXg8M4qhHEdAOaivofPg7lL82AYumY6j85xM7r1RMoq49foBWwJO CW1bQUKcJtatBCHK8ChGJMLqhOwNHyT/+V0Z9+jbWt/cAmUq4qzHXPKYHZt3oOWQX3mX 1R6IpnrrmhH474hETpCxSH0K6d99hcBe25RHZZuxB2b12NjIK80x6jfhVzlvmvHLy4/0 AF4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Zcw8iSt44zRQnuInnhV645k+1UnL83ogwA9JJZ5yA0X/D1hX3 BtitigBDgfvmjPICmHZddBtRDMECgeLO2k/rLZYvPw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZpzdWwiaLV2k26tYrYS5EGPS7fe3YwoQ7qoj43NQzGFWVfMcuTLK3ynJPgZY5E6lTyr1MSp3LNrmvByn46lE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e3:: with SMTP id h3mr1691465ljl.426.1599147534101; Thu, 03 Sep 2020 08:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200830154615.6CECEF4076B@rfc-editor.org> <BN7PR11MB2547CB85EBCF595FEE42A340CF510@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <6C4649AD-EB18-47E6-A5EA-440910977A26@fugue.com> <BN7PR11MB254709039DF02A88173AA96CCF2C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AF158680-0083-463B-9C52-141B17B5613C@fugue.com> <BN7PR11MB2547770FEDCEB3A47057FB7CCF2C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547770FEDCEB3A47057FB7CCF2C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:38:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJgLMKvK8fi+C2Aq0-xGP2wpJdUNqQn1eoVNauH-YMiGr3AtaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com" <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, "msiodelski@gmail.com" <msiodelski@gmail.com>, "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)" <ayourtch@cisco.com>, "mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "jiangsheng@huawei.com" <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "ek.ietf@gmail.com" <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "fhamme@united-internet.de" <fhamme@united-internet.de>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6c72705ae6a8cb6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/U05KotUdiSouzs8Qey61k_ManHg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 08:42:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8415 (6269)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 15:38:58 -0000

Hi Bernie,

IPv6 Ready DHCPv6 Logo has never had a test for this, so I have no idea
what the support is for general DHCPv6 Clients/Servers.

At QACafe we see about 50% of the Home Gateways support it as we have a
test for verifying it.

~Tim

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:24 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> That’s my guess as well.
>
>
>
> Perhaps Tim W has some data as to whether it is used or not (and whether
> it is even tested).
>
>
>
> If it isn’t used / implemented, may also be difficult to confirm interop.
>
>
>
> Anyway, perhaps something to consider as part of the “full” Standard work
> to see if we need a post-8415.
>
>
>
>    - Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:19 AM
> *To:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com; msiodelski@gmail.com; Andrew
> Yourtchenko (ayourtch) <ayourtch@cisco.com>om>; mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca;
> jiangsheng@huawei.com; ek.ietf@gmail.com; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <
> evyncke@cisco.com>gt;; tim@qacafe.com; fhamme@united-internet.de;
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8415 (6269)
>
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2020, at 11:11 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> I really wonder how large an issue this is and how frequently Server
> Unicast is even used. Perhaps in retrospect, a feature we might have
> considered removing.
>
>
>
> I’d be surprised if it’s used—it’s a knob you’d have to configure that
> doesn’t make things work better. IIRC we put it in because not everybody
> agreed that just requiring multicast always was a good move.
>
>
>
>
>