Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 26 July 2016 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
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 C862212D094 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.807 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 9AlNHpvJBxbS for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 872D412D5F7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7683; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469528048; x=1470737648; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dmv311O6eb5GdVND6HNTqAAnVh9zni6Xp494hL2YK2k=; b=DsGPqQI83wSzTvc11+cEcXvw/4mCzWQbX8cLERThMnBGyUDQ33AZnyqr nIypUhpigm67tv4jrwuEt0EHzsJYQz8jbmus70gqVyj6UOkv0WlzjvLrz c/zkw+r45yJ2phMilUY7IdxKw8AcURvXAOh1xYvW0yrV96zhGrHBH8sBD E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DGAwBNN5dX/5ldJa1egnFOgVKsWYcch?= =?us-ascii?q?QWBfYYdAoE0OBQBAQEBAQEBXSeEXQEFJ1IQAgEIPwchERQRAQEEDgUbh3wDF7J?= =?us-ascii?q?nDYQOAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIgiglWCQ4FgAQEFg0KCLwWYfTQBj?= =?us-ascii?q?EmCMYFsjVOGYoFGhAWDdwEeNoIQHIFMbocNgTUBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,424,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="300568866"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2016 10:14:07 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6QAE6fj030605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:14:06 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:14:06 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:14:06 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
Thread-Index: AdHmcI8Xeqr3WHpiRVGMpLY3DJqGYAAzO9OA///R5dU=
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:14:06 +0000
Message-ID: <D0C8A9A9-7B40-4B8C-8C15-225F9C25E4C8@cisco.com>
References: <1c1b86809af74a77a1cfb9dffb0bbb5a@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>, <CAFx+hENXhvU8ckZnPZ_yYdjE9DPQsJ7d1AKhvuSERzyeUemC_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFx+hENXhvU8ckZnPZ_yYdjE9DPQsJ7d1AKhvuSERzyeUemC_A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0C8A9A97B404B8C8C15225F9C25E4C8ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/nyvN-EptkVVM3BL_5SVtshFp-e4>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 26 Jul 2016 10:23:16 -0000

Yes. We will also be doing that change in 3315bis but keep some references to older terms.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:59 AM, tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com<mailto:peter416733@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Bernie,

Thank you for the comments? we will update a new version of the draft very soon.
During the ietf 96 meeting, comments were raised about changing the term "requesting router / delegating router" to "client / server". Should we change it in the updated version?

Cheers,
Tianxiang

2016-07-25 20:47 GMT+08:00 Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>>:
Hi:

Here's some comments related to the draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02 version.

Section 1:

-          "as it just help a client" -> change help to helps?

-          Same area, perhaps mention that 3315bis is dropping use of the lifetime hints?

-          Later - "handle the prefixes which lengths are different" - "handle prefixes with lengths different from the prefix-length hint"?

I wonder whether a "general solution" section should be added which says something like:

"Therefore, the recommendation to address the issues discussed in this document, is for a client that wants (at least) to have a delegated prefix of a specific prefix length to always include an IAPREFIX option with just the prefix length hint in addition to any IAPREFIX options it has included for each IA_PD in any Solicit, Request, Renew, and Rebind messages it sends. While a server is free to ignore the hint, servers that do not choose to ignore the hint should attempt to assign a prefix of at least the hint length (or shorter) if one is available. Whether a server favors the hint or avoiding a renumbering event is a matter of policy for the server."

Note that this could actually be taken as one way to interpret the original RFC 3633 text, which said:



   The requesting router may include prefixes in the IA_PDs as a hint to
   the delegating router about specific prefixes for which the
   requesting router has a preference.

This text was as part of the Solicit discussion, but perhaps it was intended to apply to subsequent transactions as well (Request, Renew, Rebind).


-          Bernie