[dhcwg] DHCPv6 Reply Message

Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu> Fri, 02 October 2020 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
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 790F03A1618 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 TFPMBjr1NgWX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 9A0323A1173 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id o5so2727268wrn.13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KDQwllKv3D+GBQc5DYgu66J+jRz4361tcOxMKVoCopU=; b=exhphZ1fz4PFlht+KRH80nkh24emf20OwGI9U1KsyC6gV2g8GXbCXSWu08TyojDu0t 06sQLJVuG6htpPVeEhq7ah9BCEMCPSUyDwuEzxW35WqqFErjJ4hsExeZhjYwrq7ygftM BUaLMNS5nxTFIH64FqUFKoJelY/CdYlYZQnNA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KDQwllKv3D+GBQc5DYgu66J+jRz4361tcOxMKVoCopU=; b=puVbby5rqvutn1nZ0y5Yzn42N0VGSHSbvfW4GyoQB8UHP96drkxE+MghMAuiE5WBoA IGnw8Hv3FF1OYvQyOYnnCXkr5zRGR4Y7q8h7UjrYOo4Uoq6T96XcMNHEROCm1znN3aJu h0YS8CgaSGOCzjs6h/4rbUCy+g4qNe+bn4juoVjozrYkJcFYDXGoxRotRQ2q0W0p89vA Z6lnlBP2r8NdGbVWkWJ5vmPVAGJlsb6noYToVX1XuS8hdL3NJ3R/eoOB/Gicx2lUI1VL A9CclqCmMX6QhG9gIbfs66y6vl/lpARVfjGe7G8tkJfg7uBqqaLF52MWLVbhZ7o27uTC xZZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326ShD1IOfQt/e02CEJF1AaeyITeLP5rweQ5o94O7TmfdzFOazk 0smBIBCQukLZeSBBFWvRiwlPjwCuuqAtUfrZiOkmdBjh+KHhUgWG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1EFDaccY20WL/Vgj26d9pS2tEoqHqNDepf4IO0Tw9HTKPPNA+RlzwySwJuAMcAal2YxszFfV+Tq5VHHSDBrU=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f986:: with SMTP id f6mr4168762wrr.270.1601661635022; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 11:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:59:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB-aFv_iTjxz9t6ycYeS4r8Mq1ZxpvS2ZrAkK4HujnHW9p=__g@mail.gmail.com>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ce713d05b0b3e8e1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/gGsGfOItp9BiHQrHNPUXfcCLrg8>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Reply Message
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Oct 2020 18:00:39 -0000

Hi dhcwg,

A question has come up regarding how to handle the situation where a DHCPv6
Client receives a Reply to a Renew Message.

For a Renew transaction, how should a client process a Reply message that
contains a valid IA_NA, but does not contain any IA Address option?  The
Reply message is otherwise valid and complete.

RFC 3315 says this:

   If the Reply was received in response to a Solicit (with a Rapid
>    Commit option), Request, Renew or Rebind message, the client updates
>    the information it has recorded about IAs from the IA options
>    contained in the Reply message:
> ...
>    -  Leave unchanged any information about addresses the client has
>       recorded in the IA but that were not included in the IA from the
>       server.


RFC 8415 updated the word addresses, and instead uses "leases":

   -  Leave unchanged any information about leases the client has
>       recorded in the IA but that were not included in the IA from the
>       server.


Should the client continue the same Renew transaction (same transaction id)
and retransmit as the IA Address Option was not included, or process the
Reply, update T1/T2 and start a new Renew transaction (new transaction id)
at T1?

Thanks,
Tim Carlin
UNH-IOL