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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C862212D094 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.807
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9AlNHpvJBxbS for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 872D412D5F7 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 03:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,424,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="300568866"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2016 10:14:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:14:06 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:14:06 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: tianxiang li <>
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: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0C8A9A97B404B8C8C15225F9C25E4C8ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <<>> 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?


2016-07-25 20:47 GMT+08:00 Bernie Volz (volz) <<>>:

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