IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@cisco.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 1219B12D84F; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:43:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 0siCxJ5feGQf; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92BE1276AF; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:43:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10634; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517938989; x=1519148589; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lu+2/lVtI/PwvSzU4PZbHV95X+DITlQzYtbeKJkFHqM=; b=Yrqxwxo3Xutl0D3n9y/YQ0lp7R6jIjLXGX7feyMdtiOazGV9m0X5PKsj /XQUE9K2kecCalxTQChIQGPSwiuqGXRnCtOp5kyKZ7xPeKw7Rz2Jg2e4j SG75PW3ophhCFiAqQOlhZ4c/vRx9XSW6Dr7Sdw7QWNJxN9CZ08kMN2itG M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CuAAAt6Hla/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJZeGZwFRMKg1uKJI4xgVuSGoVVFYIDCiOFGAIagkJUGAEBAQEBAQEBAmsohSQGI1YQAgEIPwMCAgIwFBEBAQQOBYlRZBC1aIIniH2BeAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhGqCFYNoDIJ5gy8BAQIBgTImgy0xgjQFmiOKCwKIGIQDiVeUPI1xiWICERkBgTsBHzmBUHAVZwGCG4R3eI4DgRcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,469,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="352492670"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2018 17:43:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w16Hh8Xe027358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:43:08 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:43:08 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:43:08 -0600
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
CC: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure
Thread-Index: AdOfY6gaEFANtBC7Rt+MHUK/8rJcBwAQJRAA
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:43:08 +0000
Message-ID: <599A596D-0213-4F67-9391-B6E6217B1806@cisco.com>
References: <a1104b1b903d4e319c59c1459dbfd701@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1104b1b903d4e319c59c1459dbfd701@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.97.77]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_599A596D02134F679391B6E6217B1806ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/iqOLL7CBh2IZ0I7kPDjgFEvp9Nk>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 & Reconfigure
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:43:12 -0000

Hi Bernie,

This can be a server implementation also, as long as the server saves the encapsulated
relay stack on the client’s record. My thinking is this, some other relay options may also needs
to be saved in order for Reconfigure message through the relays to work properly.

thanks.
- Naiming

On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:

One issue that sadly was not addressed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 is what to do about Reconfigure message. There are two ways to deliver Reconfigure messages:

1.       Via the relay
2.       Via unicast to the client

If #1 is used (perhaps because the client and server do not have direct communication because of VPNs or for other reasons), what should the server do? Options are:

1.       Always use the standard port (547).
2.       Record the relay port and use that (since the relay will also be used). I would assume that this would be the “correct” behavior?

I’m not sure if we should (or can) put a hold on RFC-to-be to add something about this?

BTW: This would also have been a good reason to put the port number into the option ALWAYS. This avoids the server from having to record something “else” (the port number), since the server can just extract the value from the outermost (closest to server) Relay Port option.

-          Bernie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email