IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 2354B21F8690 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 aiOMuOQ+nmib for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF6321F8687 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346968725; x=1348178325; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zBAuj+OClkM7H0iOqxYz8nL94GIIEdtVOn003QL+DKw=; b=FORNU0No0d24XTI4R6Hu8YzTSFB3yyXMHJ/kSMST1C92g7m/vdVHaz8/ idIHSaR9v3g0Vw9fNrcJrNYhUHlaqMvvKT42wT89n18zbeT9XIVn6yUUu VnD/6aPAjFFxkLG4c+gKoiaHVaTV9RlFFKEKFbZ305RqcKi7k9Nz7UuZV Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjUFAKYbSVCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFhUC2D4EHgiABAQEEEgEnPwwEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCBMHh26bN6AyixEVhVBgA6QPgWeCY4FZ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,381,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="119116668"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 21:58:45 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q86Lwi9t022920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:58:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.159]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:58:44 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AQHNjHe9qDjW3gEpckeBYuf8K4cCpZd+LGeA//+v1vA=
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:58:44 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F79B6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAL10_BpXdx03WfV1PeMKg1zYc1dAFKe1CDNdrcNf45+_EVCBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com> <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com> <D76799F8-E98C-40A3-956F-950DAE4B76DA@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D76799F8-E98C-40A3-956F-950DAE4B76DA@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.246.204]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19166.007
x-tm-as-result: No--30.577900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
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, 06 Sep 2012 21:58:46 -0000

I think the algorithm is fine. We've never run into any operational issues with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 5:44 PM
To: Bud Millwood
Cc: Andre Kostur; dhcwg@ietf.org; Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

On Sep 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
 wrote:
> Any particular reason for revisiting the hash algorithm itself, as
> opposed to just dropping the 16 byte limit in DHCPv6?

I don't actually remember the criteria that were used to choose the old hash algorithm.   Are we still happy with it?   Things have changed since the previous draft was published.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email