Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option

Qi Sun <sunqi.thu@gmail.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.thu@gmail.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 1499221F8754 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.727, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GNQhWVuS2Lkv for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727D121F8442 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so3474057dan.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=WgOD6xxozzphfnVSOWPk3VxVnjmUKLzpofbsrcU5Bd4=; b=oe80bVN7SYusCUvIzCljocmaQDWEUjubwcMKb4jQKeNRPicNgtKNjuQC/GuD/7LHFv DFJvnwxmg9ylnbd6VmiSahQXqhUwnC2hLYXCacTL+61y3QF7iVsgs86MmvkplrB6TEvD uAj//IA5m6+MMrco30tcULc2qi4xLjqP9Ul6B633AZMqUcau5Jk7n5QSsivVu1Ey6vAp Mi7iKBsDjoDY/1Blm43tuqiiG61wpp1Br1H9/HFVhS6pDapBF4UO+bv49JUCGb3oMFHB DtJbTaNksDVdKvY1UtoOXWTUQeEih2LD8q3iroCs3lwMPtYDWxgAafOmHJTYO/AbtUZL reJg==
Received: by 10.66.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr59990974pav.69.1350571373063; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.170] ([166.111.68.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vz8sm14330209pbc.63.2012.10.18.07.42.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B42AF6CD-A628-49EB-A207-FFEB59AE72D6@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:42:42 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6ED6C0E5-48E1-4E10-A190-40998201D449@gmail.com>
References: <9D3C0AC1-D5B1-4C25-AC47-4D08E3252D54@nominum.com> <CAFFjW4i_-+5WERMhM1ZFGwcKarv1hBc7NVvaKn7XQBWq02C=mQ@mail.gmail.com> <50800059.3030503@viagenie.ca> <4E18E4F4-7E60-41F7-8700-83EF2CF1D4A4@employees.org> <219448E3-6A90-411D-A430-EDE011E5E75E@nominum.com> <50F411F4-D3C5-4CED-B9BD-5E552C61C5EE@employees.org> <C2BE5A50-005C-406C-933E-B8CF0FBD5ABE@gmail.com> <B42AF6CD-A628-49EB-A207-FFEB59AE72D6@employees.org>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option
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, 18 Oct 2012 14:42:54 -0000

Hi Ole,

> if this proposal is also advocating a contiguous mask, then I don't understand why you cannot use the proposal in draft-ietf-softwire-map?

The proposal in draft-ietf-softwire-map includes case of  allocating non-contiguous port-sets to a CE. Non-contiguous port-set can't make it harder to guess the port, with extra effort for implementation.  A contiguous port-set is enough and can be achieved easily.

Thanks,

Qi Sun


On 2012-10-18, at 下午10:00, Ole Trøan wrote:

>> This draft does proposed a contiguous mask to allocate contiguous port-set. And the draft is a merged version of 
>> draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option-00 and draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-04. The authors have reached the consensus to use mask for contiguous port-set allocation, which is easy to implement both for client and server.
> 
> if this proposal is also advocating a contiguous mask, then I don't understand why you cannot use the proposal in draft-ietf-softwire-map?
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
>>>>> without a "larger context" (i.e. some sort of encapsulation, how is that supposed to work? think ARP.
>>>> 
>>>> Just to be clear here, the DHC working group is not proposing to work on defining a way to share IP addresses.   The DHC working group is proposing to work on a way to convey a port range to a device which shares IP addresses, using DHCP.   Anything more than that would definitely be out of scope for DHC.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, we discussed using port ranges versus using masks; the reason for using masks is that it's easier to do on the fast path than ranges.
>>> 
>>> right. draft-ietf-softwire-map uses a mask. you propose support for a  discontiguous mask, our proposal a contiguous one. anyhow, let us move this to softwire.
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg