Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Tue, 18 March 2014 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427281A031F for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIpQK9pI_M7C for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1741A030F for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1776; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395180719; x=1396390319; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4DcOCggZM/RCF32aOY4QFiIeuGHkFbuQmmmwCTHaMsY=; b=i/DbvG9gCtEc/MYr172XHTp8ST63xwP4qqUxpnqr7WnkWXMcM6pdFcwT 7GXeibT97wznxgrSdDFUGRQIudodFVzBQfDD5wSC0eDiSQUpbNFOpm/Os 58hxjfFWaeR/YKvKtcd3+WzORJng6bsfI+VuK4Yi/Wr2nCu9qmgBijrZB 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,680,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="311164391"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 22:11:57 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IMBvx1021392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:11:57 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:11:57 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, DHC WG <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
Thread-Index: AQHPQsQLWQUe02zA20CiBYbWx7bTLZrnYxXw
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:12:09 -0000


If we are to allow this (multiple instances of the same option), I think it would be prudent to clarify that RFC 3396 does NOT apply for this option for DHCPv4. I think this is the first option we have that cannot use this? (I'm not sure 3396 was even prepared for this situation, but I could be wrong.)

This will place special requirements on both servers and clients (servers not to split, clients not to combine).

Note that is useful to see which options are defined to be concatenation-requiring options.

For DHCPv6, this is less of an issue but certainly again an unusual (the first?) case - excepting IA_*, IAADDR/IAPREFIX, and vendor options.

(I would hope the PCP WG has a sufficiently strong motivation for needing these multiple PCP server instances.)

For DHCPv6, it is also a bit odd to have:

   If an IPv4 address is retrieved by
   the DHCPv6 server, the corresponding IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is
   included in the OPTION_PCP_SERVER DHPCv6 option.

(BTW: Note the typo here - DHPCv6?)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 PM
Subject: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

I've requested an IETF Last call on this document, so now's the time for any last tweaks.   I mention section 5 because the way it uses distinct options of the same type seems innovative and possibly not ideal.


dhcwg mailing list