IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 27 November 2013 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 693311ADFDC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 jOBeLYv3y9OK for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B771AE087 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:dd97:4873:5d32:1565]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECD61403BB; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:03:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <529633F1.8020809@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:03:29 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
References: <CEBBC722.9D48D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <52960D33.4040501@viagenie.ca> <CAFGoqUPA1_SKzxb6xAYqP2zypRW7tke-1BJE76FABxyd6i06=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUPA1_SKzxb6xAYqP2zypRW7tke-1BJE76FABxyd6i06=A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
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, 27 Nov 2013 18:03:32 -0000

Le 2013-11-27 11:03, Marcin Siodelski a écrit :
> In the case proposed in the draft: if I want to use the multicast, I
> send minimal amount of information to the client (boolean option).

What if you want to use a different multicast address than the 
well-known one?

> If
> I want to use unicast I send two options, if client receives both
> options it uses unicast. I am not certain if this is any more
> complicated that parsing the option, eliminate the duplicates and the
> problem of presence of both multicast and unicast etc.

I think that implementation-wise they're pretty much the same 
complexity. The gain would be in one less option to define, which would 
make the document shorter and easier to understand.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email