IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 12 December 2019 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 C58CD120024 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.298 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 VahNGDJXtLKe for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A40120025 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47YpyD5jMVz9vYVQ for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2qTH8wWirOt for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:54:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47YpyD49WMz9vYV5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:54:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id v25so553113qtq.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M8XqF2hIwLvR6XlnKdatTLSFXNXqwKf+WHrlS/H7Zm0=; b=dKBG1f8cyDMtXWIgIG2CgNnroFq1Mbgp/QMF4bXKLCGvikgujgYWBTUKWHhaUnYhXs sN0C56ih4fSHv3mGfabbqxtiGur0X4+Nbbqy2KqZT/ks75XcJmPFFgKgj7DWtl8zP+ju FBQCe/vTz1aELGh2vqmO5BVVYsiKO89XJnLLNSvxc0vXqlMqovfU9MeDxpzQiQ6GdRdn 8EiejlYaeD0asnyCTr8IN2ayimy3DsZ3fUQ9kKR7mgGnaF9q1hRhh5eZ1NnwpRZIAUBp Lo1B69o9SWbYONweUIk1Nf7LOvH1dZasN96jtlKXT3rqOXHUsoXFdQYkj3devP8mtQGK ID8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M8XqF2hIwLvR6XlnKdatTLSFXNXqwKf+WHrlS/H7Zm0=; b=qGtYH7BE/NCEsTVtpMZXTmOjAXOriL3yjH61rE/XpKNBY0IOHgebkxycIF+Vyzxm0q JV2INDT1smEVIXsR4axUT+B3QhJPr3qrvilEEmB0yd89qnLl5pS73kgcQf44XX+GphBm NYVshs7AhnE6ZNQJN+BXoSYz/HsJsA9sd4LMuFu6gbjlZf1z41JHEIvq1zPkBGEBYkRd FMG0nHgvNBKal8eRXFaLba9RLHv1jVHQSeltG4wHr0dwh52PQBR0EBYQcO66twBDWiSb J7xVoMRiC+MrH6NQTL55C4jNCap1ymJat1PG4p15BEkzpOBrTri3PiULPrWPN5gshNf7 hz6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVoddyTCJGFlQqzuRdA4yrkCqcvN8dnBwbSrbQiqqpU/YOX6bR4 po4tl22rgrHGoUTCGETEJObW60WRoO11RgB43WDTebIauqJfy8nUCTdo64q92FjNmXrQJiLTiAS QdR/oGPlxybQB4tYkqR2o0GikuA==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2604:: with SMTP id z4mr10204223qtc.188.1576191250909; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyUDkBkhGCHeMq0ik30n8v1uHSK/cKsTS9JCeoO7+Dv3nTFbeP53nRTbJh6OjbZU32ll3bdV9qa1h9If3CIp18=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2604:: with SMTP id z4mr10204196qtc.188.1576191250397; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:54:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157593507544.2098.9687007201578884820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABKWDgx5SSBP_K7BWxe4aPn9DKm-VPo62OXjsVZP8PRjfu0C2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQHkYh-EDLopUbWvw-gq8i5jttacVogKXUaJvJcBTdCOA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313E7F6E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM6PR11MB41379502CE18C7AF513181F0CF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <FB5B5DDE-9DB4-4E18-BF7E-7D9ECFCB016E@fugue.com> <DM6PR11MB4137651404FE6807DF29FC8DCF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAN-Dau1F794J3GzDKNmSX+hGBauQbJ954-7ViOGZN9XHs1cRWQ@mail.gmail.com> <F6B54CA9-BCF9-4E2C-B431-AC73954C99AE@cisco.com> <DM6PR11MB413778A43012050E9CB0502BCF550@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ce5dfc2f-d8a1-35b1-9678-d7b0b5303788@marples.name> <DM6PR11MB41376D48C8D68DE0040E4B7DCF550@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB41376D48C8D68DE0040E4B7DCF550@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:53:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3rjTicSA5M5Z02mxceox34txV_-Ne5WM6TBviiJnCMpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Roy Marples <roy=40marples.name@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094136b0599899f18"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/kwhtr1VZkuEsnDXacfKS5ZJ2J-I>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Dec 2019 22:54:17 -0000

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:03 PM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> > You can argue that said boxes are not RFC compliant, but that is the
> same as the argument here - nothing in the standard says that 0.0.0.0
> cannot be offered.
>
> Yes, there is no text that directly says 0.0.0.0 MUST NOT be offered. But
> it is pretty clear:
>
> Field      DHCPOFFER            DHCPACK             DHCPNAK
> -----      ---------            -------             -------
> ...
> 'yiaddr'   IP address offered   IP address          0
>            to client            assigned to client
>
> Offering 0.0.0.0 is not given the client an address it can use. There's
> plenty of documents that document 0.0.0.0 is not a destination address on
> the network. I can't see how in the absence of this use case, 0.0.0.0 would
> ever be a valid yiaddr in a DHCPOFFER.
>

Wait a sec, RFC2563 a standards-track document specifies that 0.0.0.0 is
returned in yiaddr, many DHCP servers support this and option 116. Now I
agree it is a very similar use case, but it's nothing new.

Many older DHCP clients support RFC2563, Win95, Win2000 are examples. I
think many newer clients don't support it.

Nevertheless, using 0.0.0.0 may still be a bad idea, but it is standardized
and therefore valid by definition.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email