Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Reply Message

Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu> Tue, 06 October 2020 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tjcarlin@iol.unh.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 7B3103A0972 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.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 Yu95YaO6L-Od for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (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 655C23A096B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id w5so13495942wrp.8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 06:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fKqXMXGlkOe4cW1aLwWm3WgHsTkJM+u9n8TEsI8P4WE=; b=NlXzeyk7+Mgr1HLs98F+FhBBKNi53aQjUMQ0DrM5fxSmzppEBikb//olxlzzl0PysY Cf//yINxhW2Qztk3ipHlGfqooVCTAdmYiU1xdsc1qe3Y2BEyR2u/G5Hgwm/wimMgYEUK HZ31z3HWHMwxiIo/jfVg8B28V/V6T+wCmPpr0=
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=fKqXMXGlkOe4cW1aLwWm3WgHsTkJM+u9n8TEsI8P4WE=; b=XgEDESL9bZXgdcMSurONBQi0YnT+beUMvVyDHW5OaHtYFlmAIkwXEDDrXuKM8PwhAB 5N0L+zMbBgtZfsWiATIFMTstsHZuhKNQ/Qg1xD1WAgzX2yrp1ZRauvigBD3vquCQFCdY eptRXhG9WFMf4RUAT1k2b0XqheDQ6Wk6Uz3yQNRqUexPZgAk/X6or1/Q92nDnaqwUq0C 4Z0QBP41j2bMp+PTP2gxexl47f2lVkgzsao3gugzhlKOPOCauoobiNb+GGQbSLcDst8E 3U8H03/kFmycjARynlEvU2LDhp2wckKopiPK4Igm6WCbW/KO7FnGEyEX87gVGRMbai9U wn6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532t4TUd15OafQj3Ra5qdv9Q1uhznbj9pkNt3p3iAYaiYUq/8z6p 7dMUROv0gfR4EcRtvhd5uvl8ho0PwddNxBLv5lGRgmiJLmA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy83h3YqQpM6VG381Ueon1d9OgkMiswOEdDQjFY0tagR29CfCvMJgoxLxn4GC9BEpD1BUplS5pK6+pgLGxw4BI=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e8d2:: with SMTP id k18mr2157406wrn.73.1601991334468; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 06:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAB-aFv_iTjxz9t6ycYeS4r8Mq1ZxpvS2ZrAkK4HujnHW9p=__g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJgLMKs8WuQoZXeAWJHD0d35BMYB-PU-XfO5_Yi1kMoGuOPt_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJgLMKs8WuQoZXeAWJHD0d35BMYB-PU-XfO5_Yi1kMoGuOPt_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:34:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB-aFv_4HX90WPj3eDnhpbCLqRGHH0V_0k8ataVVCSNRg=Vh9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006cb98a05b100ac4f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/mlnd5ubyBhgiZZuNYy1devDkj2k>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Reply Message
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:35:39 -0000

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your response.  I appreciate the clarification.

Best Regards,
Tim

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> My reading is the DHCPv6 client must continue to transmit Renew messages
> until receiving an Reply message containing the IA_Addr option that needs
> to be renewed as it's not supposed to be updated on the client.
>
> Retransmitting with the same transaction id seems to be correct behavior.
>
> ~Tim
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:00 PM Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi dhcwg,
>>
>> A question has come up regarding how to handle the situation where a
>> DHCPv6 Client receives a Reply to a Renew Message.
>>
>> For a Renew transaction, how should a client process a Reply message that
>> contains a valid IA_NA, but does not contain any IA Address option?  The
>> Reply message is otherwise valid and complete.
>>
>> RFC 3315 says this:
>>
>>    If the Reply was received in response to a Solicit (with a Rapid
>>>    Commit option), Request, Renew or Rebind message, the client updates
>>>    the information it has recorded about IAs from the IA options
>>>    contained in the Reply message:
>>> ...
>>>    -  Leave unchanged any information about addresses the client has
>>>       recorded in the IA but that were not included in the IA from the
>>>       server.
>>
>>
>> RFC 8415 updated the word addresses, and instead uses "leases":
>>
>>    -  Leave unchanged any information about leases the client has
>>>       recorded in the IA but that were not included in the IA from the
>>>       server.
>>
>>
>> Should the client continue the same Renew transaction (same transaction
>> id) and retransmit as the IA Address Option was not included, or process
>> the Reply, update T1/T2 and start a new Renew transaction (new transaction
>> id) at T1?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim Carlin
>> UNH-IOL
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>