IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Review request for draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 BBCA421F8582 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gNCEFZBgJFb for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0289921E8025 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3VVWnH0iiPT9wOJ6m4X9cCNqYauR5/x@postini.com; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:27 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E7F1B8237 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88959190064; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:40:25 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Review request for draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id
Thread-Index: AQHNDYTEvKYY7dEar06J4LJG6pajkJaBv72A//+LmtiAAK6zgP//060qgACMJQCAAAqm0A==
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:40:25 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D46F8@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B921E47C59E@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4F746855.8050006@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43BA@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B921E47CD24@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4619@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B921E47CE71@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B921E47CE71@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review request for draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:40:30 -0000

>The only current instance is the IPv4-embedded IPv6, which is no in
> use anymore by my understanding. But it is safer to keep prefix length.

Mainly it's not something you'd use in DHCP.   IPv4-embedded is not used as it was originally intended, but there are uses for it.

> I heard some story that in other protocol using prefix, they get rid of
> prefix length, but run into trouble during IESG review. The format of
> prefix length plus 128-bit prefix field is almost standard. I see no harm
> to keep it this way.

This is a fair point.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status