IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Confirm call for adoption:draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-02

Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <shengjiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D0B3A6FC9 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:24:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLqhOj-D0rjd for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4DE28C121 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LDG004KZ6RF9E@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:26:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LDG001QP6RF15@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:26:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j66104a ([10.110.98.58]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LDG00LAS6REUP@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:26:03 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:26:05 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <AC54130E-FCAE-49A1-87EA-47FFC55174DE@fugue.com>
To: 'Ted Lemon' <mellon@fugue.com>, 'Behcet Sarikaya' <sarikaya@ieee.org>, 'Behcet Sarikaya' <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Message-id: <000f01cb9bff$6d2b2160$3a626e0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcubsjjSXVGmGMX3RJ6ebth05jiZeAARgKKw
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Confirm call for adoption:draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-02
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 15 Dec 2010 02:24:33 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:13 AM
> To: Behcet Sarikaya; Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.orgWG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Confirm call for 
> adoption:draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6-02
> 
> I was wondering what happened to that draft.
> 
> It's actually a solution to a slightly different problem than 
> the one Suresh is talking about.   Suresh is saying that if 
> the client is choosing its own address anyway, but wants to 
> communicate its address to the DHCP server, there ought to be 
> a way to do that, and it ought not to be specific to CGA.
> 
> You are proposing a mechanism whereby the DHCP server tells 
> the client what prefix or prefixes to use when generating a 
> CGA, which is actually a bit tighter than what Sheng Jiang is 
> proposing.

Hi, Ted and Behcet,

First of all, I supports this draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id. Actually, I am also co-author of it.

I don't think this draft is conflictive or competitive against draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6.
They are solving different issues. Actually, in the draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6, when we
analyze the configuration of prefix, we said "A new Prefix Assignment Option MAY need to be
defined." This actually reference to draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id in my mind.

The only overlap and differentia is how to "Request message for confirming usage of the CGA":
draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id reuses IA Address option of RFC3315 while
draft-jiang-dhc-cga-config-dhcpv6 defines a new CGA grant option. Both solution is feasible. The
latter is more explicit on sending Reply to grant the usage of CGA and indicate the followup
operation.

> I am not convinced that these solutions are mutually 
> exclusive, but they are definitely solutions to different 
> problems.   So I am curious what Sheng Jiang and Suresh think 
> of your proposal, and also what Sheng Jiang thinks of 
> Suresh's proposal.

I have already replied as below, which Ted seems not see yet.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg11466.html

Regards,

Sheng

> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email