Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 15:06 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 F021D1A075F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:06:34 -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 uKOUkHCc3r9L for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F791A075D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1511; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395241585; x=1396451185; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oG+XBfcWyy4b53tALh+GYQotxSTv46NksK6G61IqtYE=; b=BQmdHr07nw2cwoNiRJhuC8mBPUT7WLrc+BJ+uQAjGMSUGQ6CY6INPLsi cu3LqionmzC8AQ2rdWEf5FpjjIxjDy5ycQHx5/fa0QgNx7cSfVyRz/dvr OpW2jJq8+K+GBF9Xtak/XyDL4w7+A9oBIbK8JGQo/wDPj6cw0G+hesrlF M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAGmxKVOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsJFgRkWdIIlAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEDgUIh3HPUBeONAYrBwaDHoEUAQOqd4Mtgis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,686,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="311391147"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2014 15:06:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2JF6O23032679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:06:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.92]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:06:24 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
Thread-Index: AQHPQ4Ib5+OhnDXNrk6HPplrdG6G+5rogaOQ
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:06:23 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1C571@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F51A2DB17@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <C7964664-C302-4ABE-9CAC-1AD5D9048699@cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1C1CA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <ECD64B35-7A93-46B0-B573-E6A961322E01@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECD64B35-7A93-46B0-B573-E6A961322E01@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.70.121]
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/Xjunrs5P6ySksqPeN2b2S7oB5sc
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
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, 19 Mar 2014 15:06:35 -0000

The precedent for this is RFC 3925 (though there we have enterprise-ids).

I think the address count is a bad idea, as we've used length everywhere else so best to continue that practice.

The option-guidelines document is primarily for DHCPv6, though of course the basic concepts should apply to DHCPv4 as well.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:47 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; wrote:
> To support 3396, you will likely have to encode the DHCPv4 PCP option as:
> 
> 	Option Code
> 	Length of option
> 	Length of PCP server 1
> 	IPv4 address(es) based on length of PCP server 1
> 	<Repeat the following as often as needed>
> 	Optional length of PCP server n
> 	     IPv4 address(es) based on PCP server n

This seems like a better option than the current proposal, although if it's done this way it's still essentially defining a new fragment type, isn't it?   Do we have existing examples of this?   I would define it as "option code, length of option, address count, addresses, address count, addresses..." instead of using byte lengths, but I suppose that's a detail.

If this does define a new fragment type, that should be done in a DHC wg document.   Should be pretty simple to do.