IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sat, 15 September 2012 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@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 8ADEE21F84CF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 DNnR1WC17EDz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDCA21F84B5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1171; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347726988; x=1348936588; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=OpxTxXEj2ILFINTSS8RSC7HLFZsLU7VqiashhncKqF8=; b=Hqa+zJ0Weey5++7z6AWOK+QIk5yMMsMbZ4SMrZTMLUmfvjJ9NZjHzPXy QFiP0uT064hrff//XxJ339oDK+q2GEwwgPm7+YnQepD2spb1jcmoBL6Xa xjasiIrjk+O3ox2BKUuEGV4rw7AKXOmhnT+uEaLFIbsR8Avch4M299xk5 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJStVFCtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFuE6DPYEHgiABAQEEEgEnPwwEAgEIEQQBAQsUEDIdCAIEAQ0NGodrmnifXYshhghgA6QZgWmCZoIX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,428,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="121941159"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2012 16:36:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8FGaRXK032700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:36:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.230]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:36:26 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpd/JdswgAB/xoD//5GrgIAMmf4Q
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:36:26 +0000
Message-ID: <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B8908A93F@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <21C54D57-372F-46B0-892B-398919992546@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F857F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F857F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.254.123]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19184.002
x-tm-as-result: No--37.400100-8.000000-31
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: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
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: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:36:29 -0000

Bernie,

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz (volz) 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:18 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: dhc WG; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh (shemant); Ole Troan (otroan)
Subject: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00


>Ole's answer was that basically this is how RFC 3315 operates today and we didn't want to change this (we are fixing what happens if IA_NA and IA_PD are >requested in a Solicit and only one of these is available) -- which is different than the no bindings at all case. RFC 3315 basically expects clients to >use Information-Request in this case.

I agree with use of the Information-Request message rather than changing the behavior for Request/Reply processing.  Now, when the Information-Request message is sent to the server, don't we expect an Information-Request storm at the server akin to a Solicit storm because INF_MAX_RT is 120 secs?  If yes,   the SOL_MAX_RT is also 120 secs which is getting changed in Ralph's SOL_MAX_RT draft.  So shouldn't Ralph's document now also address the INF_MAX_RT if the document does not already do so?

Thanks,

Hemant

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status