IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Valid values for DHCPv6 option 18 (Interface ID)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 01:28 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 0137A1A08C0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 5Eyr5jz-NoEz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B391A08BE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1048; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394587725; x=1395797325; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oNhPpXqHEl2ZHiQttOMNrzo9sH1fuJYRmTQsUGhKVOg=; b=NH1P0j7GxHr4sYLv2ZZFre7CSBIPromW6G4vv02A2m03cm48T/p64HX2 Z/4ATb0zot1J0+1QVHDbnYnzWgQ6XaH6AQ+G9+R7YoZsrq7Sa0u2F4IO+ IhzPEFU1ViCSwjxsVAqsxMBU5hmW6eaB9cHVyqgaT+pHyZ855EGOklbx+ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAAK3H1OtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwY7unmHMIEZFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgOCh4QJwslAgQOBYdxCA3RDxMEjikzB4MkgRQEmEWSLYMt
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,634,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="309686425"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2014 01:28:44 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2C1Sila020073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:28:44 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.27]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:28:43 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Valid values for DHCPv6 option 18 (Interface ID)
Thread-Index: AQHPPYeZ10Z45TyiY0+8i+bsEEI6VJrcqb8C
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:28:42 +0000
Message-ID: <C90E1B5F-2860-4635-B8EF-25BFFEEAD0BB@cisco.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqd48O4TpS4CWCW7rebjAiaoxfGWBy1ZYy-11AvY0iMnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_Bqd48O4TpS4CWCW7rebjAiaoxfGWBy1ZYy-11AvY0iMnw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/US-MZfFnhhCYhX31XfhZ972R_w0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Valid values for DHCPv6 option 18 (Interface ID)
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, 12 Mar 2014 01:28:52 -0000

No change.

I think this was an error - we display it as hex byte string (01:02:03:...).

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Mar 11, 2014, at 8:11 PM, "Andre Kostur" <akostur@incognito.com> wrote:
> 
> Has there been any changes as to how option 18 has been defined by us?
> I'm running into certain programs (Wireshark, in particular) and
> devices that appear to be doing both:
> - Assuming it's printable
> - Interpreting the content
> 
> Both appear to be strongly discouraged by 3315:
> 
>   The Interface-ID SHOULD be considered an opaque value, with policies
>   based on exact match only; that is, the Interface-ID SHOULD NOT be
>   internally parsed by the server.
> 
> According to my interpretation, that says that one should neither be
> attempting to interpret the contents, nor try to display it as a
> string.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Andre Kostur
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email