Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Marcin Siodelski <> Wed, 27 November 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E181AC4AB for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r3n6ntNaMv-9 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7171AD72A for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id er20so5326587lab.22 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lw02SYgm3Jq2diyIdTBAbH2L2MLVFUIZYOmqb3JgW0s=; b=Bve72wCo9qiIR5PQ0ummDhm6hmaU1zmgImTrPHVa4LueXpr0Jo7XHp+MH5k2UtEHY7 s5lSaoq8lF1Ik+fWqVzmO743EPqcc5mFpMTK2UYcxaiCM/FnH7YbcRe9tLAQAqtHqJ20 NIv7WiRc0Y1t223qx/GyT0v/LX2j4RM1YYqQrXvSgy6B6E4OVCbZe6UwzfwNW3ue2BqP 6B4t1BxugV0p69Esa1Oclb1mCUB0jLSavOYWqoidA+JdVaGNHPqFWyIptwIC/tD6WTsR 27CcsWt0+9Ty5NjNHcp2KUqyq1a6A0etRKyIlwbaL9hrOpfTgcQptoH0vsTgWc1+Du4d PW9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id r2mr13043872lbw.26.1385577749444; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:42:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:42:29 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Marcin Siodelski <>
To: Simon Perreault <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:42:32 -0000

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Simon Perreault
<> wrote:
> Le 2013-11-27 11:03, Marcin Siodelski a écrit :
>> In the case proposed in the draft: if I want to use the multicast, I
>> send minimal amount of information to the client (boolean option).
> What if you want to use a different multicast address than the well-known
> one?

The section "4. Architecture Overview" of the draft says:
" Typically, a 4o6 DHCP client communicates with the 4o6 DHCP servers
   using well known All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address."

Also section "8.  4o6 DHCP Client Behavior" says:
   o  If the client receives the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 Enable Option but no
      4o6 Servers Address Option, it SHOULD enable the DHCPv4-over-
      DHCPv6 function, and use IPv6 All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers
      multicast address to communicate with servers and relays.

The document assumes that there is only one multicast address that the
client uses. Why would client use any other multicast address? The
All_DHCP_Servers address is rather used by relays, not clients.

>> If
>> I want to use unicast I send two options, if client receives both
>> options it uses unicast. I am not certain if this is any more
>> complicated that parsing the option, eliminate the duplicates and the
>> problem of presence of both multicast and unicast etc.
> I think that implementation-wise they're pretty much the same complexity.
> The gain would be in one less option to define, which would make the
> document shorter and easier to understand.

It would make a document shorter and easier in one section but would
make it longer and more complex in the other: how should client behave
receiving both unicast and multicast address, for instance? Also, it
should then give more thought to the security section.

The implementation complexity can be pretty much the same in that, you
can reuse the code which validates the unicast address list for
multicast case, yes. But it still doesn't solve the other problem
given above. Client doesn't have to check consistency of the addresses
if it receives the simple boolean-type option:
- duplicated unicast addrs
- more than one multicast
- invalid multicast
- both multicast and unicast present

If the document is unclear or ambiguous in the part that describes the
client's behavior when it receives two options, we should work to make
it clearer.