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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 14 July 2017 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 F3EFA1316F2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 GJsREOy0ci8e for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 3E37A13171D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v6EIW2pT006853; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:32:02 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B8B15203388; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:32:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F71D2032F8; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:32:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.71] ([132.166.84.71]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v6EIW11l014382; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:32:02 +0200
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com> <3285281858d043649d507b6bda7b8646@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <1f94b780-59c1-42ce-936d-0c8a71143444@gmail.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <5fdc7054-7012-30ee-dec7-618f3cd3646f@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=8Aibz0qWib=RiCr510i6DeGGZSOFNnWG0h-mguUzgqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6f811cd2-61f1-05c2-1ede-b6933fa1dbb3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:32:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=8Aibz0qWib=RiCr510i6DeGGZSOFNnWG0h-mguUzgqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/esISJXicG8FHZsrNAl-GKMRDKGw>
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:32:09 -0000


Le 13/07/2017 à 23:14, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Jul 13, 2017 16:01, "Alexandre Petrescu" 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     My oppinion is to make DHCP spec Hop Limit > 1.  In order to make sure
>     that the encap/decap of DHCP Solicit in IPv4 GTP happening on a cellular
>     link does not drop it to 0 upon decap.
> 
> 
> If a link local sourced multicast with a hop limit of one is dropped 
> between sender and receiver, ip is broken on that link, ne c'est pas?

If that link is a real link then yes - ip is broken on that link.

But if the link is a virtual link - like when on a tunnel - then it may 
be that tunnel works or no.

Alex

>