Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@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 D9AA511E80AD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jYxrxi8WyhpZ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9DE21F9E24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372783910; x=1373993510; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ntCds2KPiUOq9/naYOwNfMASkp43ioPp4vJDosjtzh8=; b=CmsTp8ptoCsYGUe3xUYYK1AVh1a7zoyBFEm6/hXfhdo/EmsS3KOiFYdD jCpHeRqkQkgriNYoCh5RMQBKJVsgChtYR7zW/XUi4J5V7zuH1ATGHS3B9 IkAeIIvBPcPqs0K17/4BrFRyH4RudwkL0vXso6V6513ADp6/G0bGbu2eW 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFAJID01GtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagwl7v06BBRZ0giMBAQEEOj0CDAQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcyFAkIAgQOBQiIB7w7jykxBwaCfmcDkzuVU4MRgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,981,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="230022038"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2013 16:51:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r62GpnDH021847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:51:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.56]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:51:48 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOY3uM9UALGIVfFEmPJoU9Kl4stpkq4qaAgCD5gwCABMu2gP///s0AgAGeyID//3BUAIAAXGmA//+s3eA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:51:47 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185CF4B7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F61CD@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <B235506D63D65E43B2E40FD27715372E1CE292C3@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185CF3B1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F7DA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751F7DA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.100]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt
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: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:51:56 -0000

I'm not clear on the need for this myself. Is this a real problem or just an optimization?

I just figured if there was value, that this seemed like a much more streamlined approach. The draft didn't seem to address what happens when the client sends in requests (and making the DHCP server remember this from a reconfigure-request seemed a bit odd -- why not have the relay include this in each Relay-Forw if this is 'needed').

There's also the question of whether the client itself c/should tell the server this (i.e., it has a v4 address) -- if it is important. That would eliminate the relay from having to do the monitoring.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:39 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Prashanth Patil (praspati); dhcwg@ietf.org; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-01.txt

On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:22 PM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 1. An option from the relay during client requests (Relay-Forw) to the server as to whether the client is single/dual stacked (as the assumption is the relay monitors this).
> 2. A means for the relay to reconfigure the client (already covered by Reconfigure-Request) when changes in the dual stack-ness for a client is detected, perhaps passing this option to help the server determine what to tell the client about reconfiguring. I'm not sure that option adds significant value and requires complicated processing by the server - but if some implementation wanted to use it, I don't see the harm (it would be a MAY).

Thanks, Bernie-that's helpful.   I guess I can see the motivation for doing this, but it seems like some heavy gymnastics the entire purpose of which is to get around bugs in the client stack.   It's also something that a dual-stack DHCP server could detect on its own, if the relays implement the client link-layer-address relay option.   And it's also pretty experimental.

What's the use case?   Do we have a real-world application for this, or is it just something that is theorized to be useful in the future?