Re: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis - Prefix Lifetime of 0 (Ticket #152)
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 19 November 2015 17:35 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28421B2F0B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 KbPw2MhPftzi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 5D0471B2E81 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so96902723iof.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cwA3ceVQK7N1ICTEju4xNsCQKI1GXAyvFG6983wy/n4=; b=ogtv98n3lNa9SKBL+bTZqQqOGih6jjpEPdalxKIEtmaBka+2TCj0301jIHh+EJZ7G3 MSh9SpvkXBVzDTYHiqOy15NBE9k22YQn+nYOhwdy8GkmVMzQeup9z7LpD7YrnLVbx4kB eQE8+qL9KZ1cNzKeeuVdnHeH2IKWJyzxuWGjE/gGOh4UdiZUK4qoDDPExOUuRkx/d0MS QjlzqNgzf+g82Yui5jVrhql+TdokjJTP8WBenCF33Gd6OF+IOOmxXVm8JVCowFmrJp+0 +SFrL28D6KLkHgB3bF8eU+4EYoDd96sST7+2IAF9J0dAItxcRIMkl01r1bmT0z5B2Gbn udEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.184.9 with SMTP id i9mr11010001iof.4.1447954512450; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.47.217 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2712cf0e980149b59f5c185310475e26@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <5d3e287c180b4e53a8240a11ebae3cdb@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqeD766TDqtHsg54vMyWS5DkmEOV=-tUtfDrUfO8TQ=RTQ@mail.gmail.com> <2712cf0e980149b59f5c185310475e26@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:35:12 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MfImGU1SBi5cVDifXK5U2wkczX8
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqebU5OBuPynr--6bwjpYC2eKumw-t9Pfm0wmbXqqQNR6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/iYCRDaLBGg3vrskLnFSJgS6ymB8>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis - Prefix Lifetime of 0 (Ticket #152)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:35:15 -0000
At Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:43:01 +0000, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote: > I think your suggestions are reasonable. I am also be bit > uncomfortable connecting DHCPv6 to the RAs (and if we did, this > would only be for a case when the lifetime(s) from RAs change from > non-zero to zero since we wouldn't want a storm of requests with > each RA). I'm not sure that clients would always have access to the > RAs and whether having them monitor these is worth it. > > We could also be mostly silent on this issue (after all, RFC 3315 was). Either is fine for me. If it doesn't require a protocol update (like how to interpret a 0-lifetime PIO in the context of DHCPv6), it might be better handled in a separate BCP-like document. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
- [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rfc331… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rf… 神明達哉
- Re: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rf… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rf… 神明達哉