Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 16:39 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 6A30D21F940D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 W2qxwbH4mj-4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC39A21F8A85 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUdMCLXou/tpM8fUbLs/xs1mRuZwczzWr@postini.com; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:39:09 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 F1E671B821C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (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 EABD019005D; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:39:08 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOdCenS2HB7oYtEky7nP+0jJgy+ZlQS9sAgABa/4CAAUKZAIAAJFaAgAAEmYA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:39:07 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F7DA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F61CD@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CE292C3@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185CF3B1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185CF3B1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.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="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <3F644D0D0B2B534F8782A2CE8B7A42E3@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
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: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:39:16 -0000

On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:22 PM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 1. An option from the relay during client requests (Relay-Forw) to the server as to whether the client is single/dual stacked (as the assumption is the relay monitors this).
> 2. A means for the relay to reconfigure the client (already covered by Reconfigure-Request) when changes in the dual stack-ness for a client is detected, perhaps passing this option to help the server determine what to tell the client about reconfiguring. I'm not sure that option adds significant value and requires complicated processing by the server - but if some implementation wanted to use it, I don't see the harm (it would be a MAY).

Thanks, Bernie—that's helpful.   I guess I can see the motivation for doing this, but it seems like some heavy gymnastics the entire purpose of which is to get around bugs in the client stack.   It's also something that a dual-stack DHCP server could detect on its own, if the relays implement the client link-layer-address relay option.   And it's also pretty experimental.

What's the use case?   Do we have a real-world application for this, or is it just something that is theorized to be useful in the future?