IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Next step(s) for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses -> abandon work? / IA_NA applicability

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 EA4431B36A7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 so_36nL0MziK for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com (mail-ig0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB3C71B36A4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggg4 with SMTP id g4so80122707igg.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ee6Jkh0uCjHfvr2kg7CbCdPOKjqNodhjrbJeaf4V7QA=; b=iVEMU3yc4wWNCsBcrUJpEt7G/q9FUmjow7iQBGXB/2nLOwxvxr+/6dTO61cib8FLfP 3kAUi21Bqqb9pcjMSvhjUn6RkUfXP5yegCp3KLN1dijpeZ+wtlGhBpfBve5RKuyv/IjS uuzN5rX/oaAWtoKngYVKCV/UGvl83Dmzzp1BEk3krR9gNQ6YMUDIyWcHhrRyrQjKITsg 0VwMmIesDRAeEbtpvMTygBOOaVM24v2ornUJrHPmMAVzU+9PvRQ6GMvKev1YCmmVYkkt swEmQdPrToaTw6Qw5KLAD9ZeSjiDMD07ht56h29uiMV7iST42kBRFN+NadYa6Qn3FvCs /j0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ee6Jkh0uCjHfvr2kg7CbCdPOKjqNodhjrbJeaf4V7QA=; b=NX9U73uSrbEAJqsXR7jHHvVvy+Cije44RifWeE9AzpUTomtHx3vxkQ3BNKp0YY/8E8 oJL8Zb103xTEq6AOpPBkTTMr5Vm340I9I9je94yK+KrIHIbZWVCbsXIZXQMTXIgPDUcp Z4xp8xmHt6JCBfm+CYMXV++ObTaSf86Gkrvf0zoCJFeCpyma2jayAHDOC6kPgG1RHt9Z XrQnXGqEfeAgMkSa+zd3OZ+AGAOFZeeCc4a46Zaj1XgJX3GEt4MTngnQbcjQ5rV7i8tU EKJeTLFRBqDr8R/FdiiCR3pYuxZrQv8nJyCC+SEz1D6qzjJ3X6iYxY4qSmCS2FXtSk9f LWgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQka5FIS4Hxbq6/VXVaHybSgastuxtPeYrbQwUHwvwlBWpHyRix/bR4fiMnwnlsJKYFESKBJ
X-Received: by 10.107.46.155 with SMTP id u27mr49576071iou.87.1428621647286; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5526D45A.9020701@si6networks.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA32071@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA321EE@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <6D7A465E-6EBE-4B69-9B65-BAC7BF2A9873@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA3229F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55214802.1070305@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3UYT0yPEqftEXpN8zmk=-dka_NMcu3rbb_GG+YSnk2ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <5524D09B.3090706@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2Ztzoys+xKBzsEHU5hqJmfGpn-GeWPEqNCHRuWOTgsJQ@mail.gmail.com> <55250911.30100@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0ojVmk-ctUO313zvAx01P=B-A2zVuwDm73+dLgVwDLOw@mail.gmail.com> <55250DF2.8050001@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr33wFmjjqjYu8YEpqYvnn=kh9oJhe1YAC7UEzacQFBaWg@mail.gmail.com> <55251EFA.4000204@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0XK-DQkcJKwTYmiWzCzZs4pubCme9rAgoZ_ig-P5MgsQ@mail.gmail.com> <55253F14.6000706@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0Q2634Rfw0_9NiU+-S_yfD2RwPs7uPWAbTuOADyx8bHg@mail.gmail.com> <5526B5F9.9090707@si6networks.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA499A7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5526D45A.9020701@si6networks.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:20:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2g9sc8Y3URBMt=yNkD61-iG37rpNc5ZXJHjLfghD3KJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ac5b6ce3147051352e52c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/dwSPyh0v6IeyljYPQAYzecfCu0U>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Next step(s) for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses -> abandon work? / IA_NA applicability
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 23:20:49 -0000

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> > This concept is flawed if the servers aren't cooperating. If there
> > are multiple servers that don't share lease data, how does server 1
> > know whether the lease was leased to another client or renewed, if
> > server 2 ends up communicating with the client?
>
> Usually, you need servers to communicate because there's no way to tell
> which address each server may have assigned to which client. But that's
> not the case with this method.
>

It is still the case even with this method, because the servers need to
agree on the value of the counter variable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email