Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 5125B12EC4A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F74WkGIX5gTk for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C89A12EA95 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v65Mwwma032922; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:58 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v65Mwn6c032788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:49 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:58:48 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
Thread-Index: AQHS9arVhBw2kgo3pEWYMQAXDUpSSKJF160Q
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:58:48 +0000
Message-ID: <9bedd8473ac24dec9e82b7850347efcf@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/aAn8har838bfGNm5XXddxQ7GbSA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 Jul 2017 22:59:01 -0000

Hi Alex,

> Is it ok to use a GUA in the src address of a Solicit Prefix Delegation?
>   Is the GUA mandatory, or could LL do it as well? (some server seems to
> require it to be a GUA).

How would the client get the GUA before it does the PD Solicit? SLAAC?
IA_NA Solicit? What if all the client needs is the PD and no other GUAs?

With my code, I do PD Solicit with link-local source address with no
problems. I have been using the kea DHCP server, but it seems like
it should work for other servers as well.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 9:22 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation
> 
> What is the Hop Limit that a Solicit should contain in the IPv6 header?
> 
> (The ISC and a Cisco client set it at 255, whereas odhcp6c client at 1.
>   The dst address is a ff02.
>   The ND link messaging uses Hop Limit 255.)
> 
> Is IA_NA with empty fields a valid option in a Prefix Delegation
> Solicit, or must IA_NA be absent altogether? (the intention is to only
> request the Prefix, because the address comes from RA).
> 
> Is ORO with empty fields illegal in a Prefix Delegation Solicit?  (the
> intention is to get the DNS server from RA, but some client puts an
> empty ORO there).
> 
> Is it ok to use a GUA in the src address of a Solicit Prefix Delegation?
>   Is the GUA mandatory, or could LL do it as well? (some server seems to
> require it to be a GUA).
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Le 29/06/2017 à 02:30, internet-drafts@ietf.org a écrit :
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host
> > Configuration of the IETF.
> >
> > Title           : Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
> > (DHCPv6) bis Authors         : Tomek Mrugalski Marcin Siodelski
> > Bernie Volz Andrew Yourtchenko Michael C. Richardson Sheng Jiang Ted
> > Lemon Timothy Winters Filename        :
> > draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt Pages           : 140 Date
> > : 2017-06-28
> >
> > Abstract: This document describes the Dynamic Host Configuration
> > Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring
> > nodes with network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and
> > prefixes. Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination
> > with stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6
> > prefixes.  DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to
> > stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).
> >
> > This document updates the text from RFC3315, the original DHCPv6
> > specification, and incorporates prefix delegation (RFC3633),
> > stateless DHCPv6 (RFC3736), an option to specify an upper bound for
> > how long a client should wait before refreshing information
> > (RFC4242), a mechanism for throttling DHCPv6 clients when DHCPv6
> > service is not available (RFC7083), and clarifies the interactions
> > between modes of operation (RFC7550).  As such, this document
> > obsoletes RFC3315, RFC3633, RFC3736, RFC4242, RFC7083, and RFC7550.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 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