IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] advancing RFC8415

Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> Fri, 29 January 2021 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <roy@marples.name>
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 CB66D3A11A7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:26:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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=marples.name
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 xjYowcjmpWnM for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay2.marples.name (relay2.marples.name [77.68.23.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E333A11A5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.marples.name (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:690c:1::59]) by relay2.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE5E62F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:26:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.73.1.30] (uberpc.marples.name [10.73.1.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08AEB3E16; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:26:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marples.name; s=mail; t=1611941175; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2yhK1CQCDTAGfz6eZB7LvaGZJDEEVemOzMEZWgEVmjI=; b=ZWT9loS+Dag695lDvztC2LtGRMDevB00BbFk8EcgIjmNoDIxdgCUmJime/XHJ1JouWQIwr 0KrNRVvn+/UI8L/pJo7dvVnWK9UdeWcujqQEuVBFdzdh7zp6XDkQykxTE4cvbqWeBUOwTh B8N1rORVyH197dIrWa8lZ8A7ZZ2qxbs=
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <161072898498.9489.2611555465563748934@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN7PR11MB2547CDD79B10E5D9D1523B53CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <30620.1610833681@localhost> <BN7PR11MB254729F216EA7D5DE786CA3CCFBC9@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>
Message-ID: <1661e160-db17-6818-700d-5276e8744d2d@marples.name>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:26:15 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB254729F216EA7D5DE786CA3CCFBC9@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/VPeXFIeS1-wVfU5rH7iAhG0QTDQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] advancing RFC8415
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:26:21 -0000

On 26/01/2021 17:31, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>     (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
>         with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

> For (1), while it may be possible we can find sufficient implementations that adhere to RFC8415, we feel that once the USGv6 DHCPv6 testing is done (which is now based on RFC8415), it will be far easier to document this. Currently, most implementations are probably somewhere between RFC3315 and RFC8415 (some may not honor RFC7550, which is part of RFC8415).
> 
> I think there is no debate that RFC3315 (and many of its friends) meet (1) but it is less clear that hurdle can be met by RFC8415 (and some of the "more recent" RFCs that were incorporated into it).

I believe dhcpcd-9.4 conforms with the all the above RFC's and sees a lot of use 
for Prefix Delegation.

Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email