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

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

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427281A031F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIpQK9pI_M7C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1741A030F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAFXDKFOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABUBoMGO1e6aIc8gS8WdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0CwwEAgEIDgMEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgCBAENBQiHcQ3QRReOHxIxAgUGgx6BFASqdoMtgis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,680,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="311164391"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 22:11:57 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (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 xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.92]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:11:57 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1A505@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <2A55218F-15FD-438E-9292-ECC520EC6433@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A55218F-15FD-438E-9292-ECC520EC6433@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.70.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/nT8uKmxOFSStYBmUGS1FK9cgmN4
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 18 Mar 2014 22:12:09 -0000

Hi:

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 http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3396.html 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 [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 PM
To: DHC WG
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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp/

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg