IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 06:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 2A9D112DAAB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 zjfV3LTJBXPW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A86B12D12D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id b62so39253451iod.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BTFJs7/UqkZwJHbZJ9tknfkkjeeY4zr5b5gBW3j1XEU=; b=o+duXwfPs6PMyHeytMy6NICkHl4r9awMUYhX8t+CZ582YLrvwQ6qaHAxWfOATTVP8I tuGvsQJsDdfobv9c5BRZi3pSm+OUxvvaPe4KAJBchiFNKMGWoal/7Nh7ImujnYZSI8V/ oScZxLcFEcVkr1uJQeGnQmP7vQ0OFXhOxBHFcCPGXyuy9oZtFjIbJfVbQO5b42NtYS4/ iGQfxXxX2BaJbAaMpFdzdkV7ooJhQ033ggyMov2uo5cihYrKr5qk1rUKnjdp4kj05LNx ZcnM+Pgkh8tFgF1sxm6Q8PHsLc2/bSlZxgwqTiJ5FLVjZyQcimBc2L1JS6BQ0efMqFaX Cd+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BTFJs7/UqkZwJHbZJ9tknfkkjeeY4zr5b5gBW3j1XEU=; b=ca2EodQSq6J1yD/Cxd6hB/+QzSmPxrxoP1ESHaIinvR4hZc1vD8HrhSw7VSBqJS48y dZMSJJuMvgJSll0Bh4AO0INjeec0fvABdSkcR4UTikMRxnK13yXPMrSj+GK0tWK0++Uq yR7RlWF+x21FQe8cHEbXJ9FDp3w1LY+CPXSA3g3DO4kyXhfbq5X07QbWlUr1MNA1xa8K NO6v53Dk2WQIqhA5tPGHeDoKiMieDBfMA1LYxfCdnbsJUq+huzKk+AmNBxQADZBtIjBN CNtHS7rNnKOyvwCNqIdPfGBwp8wJD9GtrM+YyXi+e+OUGgzVC/09uibvvkUWYNRs9xsy Ny3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKat4vUD+ENQp0dLfpYDBDXjWNAsz6rQHTZK/u2ShCIo7eu3qQZr6LB86oeOQfQL/WYqGM+KntkhHU2xZJO
X-Received: by 10.107.9.6 with SMTP id j6mr31139423ioi.89.1468996444492; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.65.15.99 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <577FDCCE.5090107@gmail.com>
References: <577FDCCE.5090107@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:33:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr16-awybeDPHjk7uRkesDtn8UfDewJ9_AwA3uxzR3KjhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f9bd040787905380b63ff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ochf_rG02qEPQtVu-0flq7RgCuI>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:34:07 -0000

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This call initiates the working group last call
> on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 [1].


rfc3315bis is written to assume that a client requesting a prefix via
DHCPv6 prefix delegation is a router. The term "requesting router" is used
throughout. But it is useful to delegate prefixes to hosts, as well.

For example, draft-templin-aerolink and draft-herbert-nvo3-ila and
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host all mention assigning a /64
prefix to a host. But because RFC3315 still talks about "requesting
router", when we wrote draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability (now in
AUTH48) we had to say:

      While [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6
      PD itself does not require that the client forward IPv6 packets
      not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that the client
      be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].  Also, in many cases
      (such as tethering, or hosting virtual machines), hosts are
      already forwarding IPv6 packets and thus operating as IPv6 routers
      as defined in [RFC2460].

In 3315bis, can we use another term instead of "requesting router"?
"Client"? "Requesting node"?

Cheers,
Lorenzo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email