IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 19 July 2017 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 533F1131C5E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 NO68bDj9s6AR for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (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 462D5126C0F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id o88so18666992pfk.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HOi6LX73NbmkhvU6VaiaMoODmo6GMCXnv0ByD54ABdc=; b=Qkos71/BxnopM9RthjWk2WT88W0/ERanPNZCHFQ75m7g8rcxcj20w84TKMp2EQCT4z Uv9Ui0nu9/Q1pqsjUDlG5uXiFY15+76XBh4eLlEHva/amtxOWtbcukOyYj8WZZFomad+ 8QrYjaLDiFIgqjbknsMvBR9KClUZRBZwuE//IBvi2NRFriF+Af6vV+l9OYnHa/pccHNb TJfQ8AsTrNjU7bTk+57SChQeI0N0T6iZrPa9EmEysOrBd9NXj4TGlcT4GBxqL0bz9SML a8hkg29kHlSi/lCpuwUwveTlef6ipVGPkVFwWSYkjulbhVcn0Wn4CAqdzBw1z2Ap22CC 26lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HOi6LX73NbmkhvU6VaiaMoODmo6GMCXnv0ByD54ABdc=; b=KzKc3ST3Ppdzhj6KDXrMC8A+nf++9gcda9ih2rMv+EOjupU4OeKKwBtzZqThWyXQ+g 6QNvvRtonPygIXpfZE6MjHUqwo4DPl0Z6P6sSVhDPTi0z0j0nEREoL8nVbaKKM5a4jkk IunGVW+1ws/MY37bm4EaSTlagQyXVWix8SoBM6TUloWRRYbf7mJ+UdNMI7MEa0XGsDcV WU2kWLXoNlw/IBW4T7Jv/HCkE1EdGVeoCYBbvophj/iThRfdCTtOmVR3gITc91lXY49T P5v7Rm+dARrpQ0JHrPifr4vlpcJygvdIkSpXC8mv2vl/l+RS42RbMdosXbHhFqICT6BF BmZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112GRi5I2ItvlJi0dE77VZi2aCUjtxGJbWzqQqk9NKhfM8i2GXnv ycZv5u0chivvbJliD0kamCe1kI56hKbC
X-Received: by 10.98.10.68 with SMTP id s65mr2173472pfi.55.1500457995894; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56aee165-9dd3-7633-a3bb-9d62b469b48a@gmail.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.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> <6f811cd2-61f1-05c2-1ede-b6933fa1dbb3@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=0_U3en3zAJbO0fMxKv32iFYLcTVqn6bO5zm6XjT3+iQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ea332fc-79a0-4ae9-50fc-465f2389157a@gmail.com> <CC675F8E-BCA7-4937-8A26-A5CA227C56C8@t-mobile.cz> <243e84a0-2804-d1a3-2d9d-4969c83e81df@gmail.com> <6606c293c34d405e8153273a4bdeb357@srvhk403.rdm.cz> <CAPt1N1nCjEB5vgejn9CjO6y9PU_WqBn41PpvofF1h_ATv3_GmA@mail.gmail.com> <bc49c4e4567d4425af4f83e7136817aa@srvhk403.rdm.cz> <CAPt1N1kUGmp-87MeV0kf9rfGp85ux8RNpENCL1pknybWs_MPNQ@mail.gmail.com> <28fcee88f7354927b521c822b50277c6@srvhk403.rdm.cz> <CAPt1N1mt51V4aHTs46S71qRpoz0iwpAyxq0_YqHX=AtRDa+x-g@mail.gmail.com> <56aee165-9dd3-7633-a3bb-9d62b469b48a@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:52:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mDcKo5G19t38HcNh_WErYg8n0yswy-Wk7QCL26mpwFeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11459fbad8c1aa0554a899bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/gQZWshyvdSEEOc8TS69NgUuRLVg>
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:53:17 -0000

No worries.   Have you tried compiling with USE_SOCKETS?   Does that
produce the same result?

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Let me explain.  I no longer have a request for the spec 3315bis.  Sorry
> for the intrusion.
>
> Le 18/07/2017 à 11:07, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>
>> He later said that he'd observed this behavior when using the ISC DHCP
>> client.   My theory is that this is an artifact of the way the ISC DHCP
>> client transmits packets on the network, and not a problem with the
>> tunneling protocol.   It would be nice to validate that conjecture.
>>
>
> We work on this conjencture, but it takes time, because it involves many
> people, I am the only who speaks, and some times wrongly.  Now I prefer
> to stay silent until I get some resolution to talk about.
>
> Until then, all I can say is that I have packet dumps that show
> encapsulation, and ICMP hoplimit exceeded, and that the DHCP Solicit had
> hoplimit 1.  It is however not clear whether or not that's anybody's fault.
>
> This is not a matter of someone's fault; the goal is to make it work.
>
> I am sorry for the confusion this may have created.
>
> Alex
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email