IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 E163721F865C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CVbB876UmgEY for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB7721F860D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUC0wBOjKjtOAByVYDpFuFn96BqgBZK4m@postini.com; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:38:42 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9441B82F9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60BBF19005C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:37:52 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpddHmiAgAAVWYA=
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:37:51 +0000
Message-ID: <5AAE3B81-ABDE-49AF-BD14-C5307EC7CA7E@nominum.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <93E6DE37-FD02-42BC-B4E9-DF0BBCD06C02@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <93E6DE37-FD02-42BC-B4E9-DF0BBCD06C02@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C8460376AF403C49B36F937C34C04BC9@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:38:44 -0000

One other question about this draft: it proposes extending the Confirm message to stateful options other than IA_NA.   Presumably, the option we're most interested in is IA_PD, but how would a DHCP server without access to the client binding state know that a PD was valid?   Are we talking about a scenario like Leaf Yeh's prefix pool option, whether the server simply validates that the proposed prefixes are within the pool that is assigned to the specific PE router?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email