Re: [dhcwg] SOL MAX RT

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> Thu, 13 September 2012 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.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 40A9821F85A3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.397, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 li8HGHv4ityp for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog127.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog127.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4264821F85C4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob127.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUFHaWqbvzkrKsc1aujAelFh+Xyr5uDFX@postini.com; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:06:37 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHC01.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.25) by mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.253.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:03:36 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.14]) by MOPESMAILHC01.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.25]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:03:49 +0200
From: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
To: "Brzozowski, John" <John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:03:47 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] SOL MAX RT
Thread-Index: AQHNkR0BaQGOcCBbNkS5TFR4leqD8ZeH0D7wgACleID//8gP4A==
Message-ID: <867F4B6A1672E541A94676D556793ACD16E4E8D740@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <867F4B6A1672E541A94676D556793ACD16E4DC56E6@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <BD87928F6BFAEF4EBEB883E1C4F587723023AB16@PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com> <867F4B6A1672E541A94676D556793ACD16E4E8D555@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <BD87928F6BFAEF4EBEB883E1C4F587723023CFB1@PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <BD87928F6BFAEF4EBEB883E1C4F587723023CFB1@PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] SOL MAX RT
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, 13 Sep 2012 13:06:38 -0000

Thx John

@Bernie: you mention " If you want to make it proprietary, use a Vendor Information Option (17)."
This is correct, but does not help solving interop issues of course (which is one of the points I'm trying to make)

Regs
Carl




-----Original Message-----
From: Brzozowski, John [mailto:John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com] 
Sent: donderdag 13 september 2012 14:22
To: Wuyts Carl
Cc: dhc WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] SOL MAX RT

You will see some follow up mail from me on this draft today or tomorrow.

=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com
o) +1-484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=========================================

On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Wuyts Carl wrote:

> Thx John,
> 
> Thing is that it get referred to from RFC6204, making it impossible for a CPE to meet the requirement of course.  We could take a proprietary option, but then every implementation would/could use a different number, which is to avoid I'd say.  In fact, this already happened before with DSLite option.  I've bumped into some implementation some time ago which was using a different number for the DSLite option, hence making the setup fail initially. 
> 
> Regs
> Carl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brzozowski, John [mailto:John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com] 
> Sent: woensdag 12 september 2012 21:29
> To: Wuyts Carl
> Cc: dhc WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] SOL MAX RT
> 
> Carl,
> 
> I do not think this is possible, I will check and get back to you unless someone beats me to it on the list.
> 
> John
> =========================================
> John Jason Brzozowski
> Comcast Cable
> m) +1-609-377-6594
> e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com
> o) +1-484-962-0060
> w) http://www.comcast6.net
> =========================================
> 
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Wuyts Carl wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Anyone an idea when an option number will be assigned for this oro (as it still says TBD in below draft) ?
>> (I-D.droms-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update)
>> 
>> Thx and regs
>> Carl
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>