Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 55FD321F8546 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 kJb+AfWiUSTe for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog102.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog102.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F1B6C21F8539 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob102.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEkZH0Z6Xe+v2Eh2lfYv9sYXTDcOlEuG@postini.com; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:44:00 PDT
Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so4338577iea.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+bnO0zKvc4YJL3OcgHCDzsnOGI+O3JfsaLTRqOV6ebI=; b=H6UgnRx7HtBpoEPLliVWn6kcQWALIQDlnf3MHsnVjopBPf0lggePvnzMJWI6JHLhW4 QiIhMA/B7Gi4JUUnde7tP6br1spqL0gov/05FntxpITyofXuQWZIda29DtattzSAnfJd VD+slui01w2JEnQmqMCNosu2yWnvbAjA/v0ps46j55dVCPYxg+YQGqsYRRLuJG5BND+i vu6AoUWMP87X860FA6WfTECVbOywpTNX3qbpaDv2nZQVX7jDpFs0IlPYjgWs59Z9Q/5z frnJedMcQO0kLBZSWjicJ8NHGiRLabQujN3US787zo390m2yLOw4S4rAwEp08KUFFp17 pLNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.213.97 with SMTP id nr1mr25222170igc.40.1346967839157; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.100.137 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAL10_BpXdx03WfV1PeMKg1zYc1dAFKe1CDNdrcNf45+_EVCBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com> <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:43:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL10_BoLsdppYKNSfHheYrZg+SfaggoynQf2X11HEdy=ELFUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9Dw8HN3QHwFzy/tJ56BFKUGInmQ7P1SrJKNTS5P0woeSYucar0BhIeGSePlet+cmbRyXD
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
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: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:44:01 -0000

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anybody recall why the original load balancing had the 16 byte
> > restriction?
> >
> >
> > Nope.   It might be worth visiting the question of whether the hash
> > algorithm is the right one.
>
> Any particular reason for revisiting the hash algorithm itself, as
> opposed to just dropping the 16 byte limit in DHCPv6?
>
> - Bud

Personally I don't think we need to revisit the algorithm.  I have not
heard of anybody complain about it, and existing DHCP servers and
relays (assuming they're doing load balancing now) will already have
the implementation done.   I think the 16 byte limitation should just
be lifted.   In the common cases of ethernet-based networks, DUID-LLT
is 14 bytes (below the 16), DUID-LL is only 10, and DUID-UUID is 18
bytes (only 2 beyond the 16).  The only one that is more of a question
mark is DUID-EN as the vendor-specific identifier could be of
arbitrary length.  The one case that we've heard of so far puts the
length at 13 bytes + the length of a serial number.


I'll wait for this discussion before I publish an updated draft to
reflect this topic.


--
Andre Kostur