IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 17 November 2016 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 0159912957F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 udqp0EoeoyYl for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 5C747129634 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q130so225998981qke.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4Adqg5waCH9jEZk+RRS+Ar0naufHbarcX2+9l3RkCKc=; b=dX3RzI+B+7aqyD+L+p/wzgRMIU4dmi666h51lItwOklZJdAjIeoa7NIfKTq/gQrEAd O1AkSTs/a2EF2S8R38NtT20h+SMDBYXWOgHYvGMcnkpeLVK6npe5/AktwVG35p32qyWp llG3TdJksNI7yFvsFgIEcpSGMCeMahRCH4mGOLDo/SQIaJHNcr3SUl66g+6LqngnGBvk 9LsDeL+UsIAxkksfxFe8ohkCjLCM8s8Vd7FTM3UnSWFqw53OrYpZQDxVYlH3D8cTL5du GfFw6AIf/fLT8o6eOqBO/Dw9Q/zN5foNSe+4fDiCHS3FTk8flYKGgAcX4OTbgkFq8E5z GDrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4Adqg5waCH9jEZk+RRS+Ar0naufHbarcX2+9l3RkCKc=; b=gRkKlZvWswa9pVkzbgGvLPZstOoJ15PwgBoC1Rwd7lZHkCqQlUa1scdSWXLIJvLD5F niCn3c78eXxmwxJlrJ46B3UWc2BYJ/Hm3FFnZG2A8D1eqYtSMTIs2LXaviG1sSaPjAC+ WLeZXDcyd14qgEq/E2He+QVCfxe3XJ12ea4XIm1O4xTlbOFktoT1Q9iT2GumyEQQDE0X vT2noAbExpRpOVBdUWdI1nurWyiVs9IBXQHy0e8FoL2TpFiK5ZXbTY34rF/kgjfLGR+N vvSLkfdECmapWp9Fl5sVxXeq9Vqxnq29RcfcPfVyU3ZMyMk32+k4huDT3ZBtd+kM0ZwL gqPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02VIyYr0AZw3JW3VWJOZupEAHtJ3yXqWl1qI5+p7fMrDvAkyl49BSePsHqvTbyAeXbQ13qAmqbP7YZ3cQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.65.75 with SMTP id o72mr3764522qka.19.1479397993345; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.53.155 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3w4Ncj40JwrW6UB+TVFvymByU5Y9iFv5QroWhwUzkLrS2DTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJE_bqebwr2WUUgaNgiYS4_8L77Gxj4Os+oPRG407B6ELMEhCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ndi5Gq63n5kZnanRhLM8nWE2wsWGh0kJJLJnq=VoXLuCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqegh1DfWjfK2BxeC_fWa0cEk-KJNP0AT-TQuEa39w_wVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NdM99nv4C19Xj=aosNme+_Ymyys=xQ3UWUfeZReZC4ckA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdhGZnK16MooiyujDgthDNnR74EiwW0OevrN6uq4b4ANw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfKUZe2yaW1sAq7rrib0M7wz28HHtPLqCHK=vXcN6amgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Nd3s+ZojjiotLkKwys6truhUgK6F-90UYjcpB9iw=fKKQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2r36nuqvn.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NeuNYTrX4p5rtZ6UceD5ydQ-B-vY6aqQzxWnXsrDOEFEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdh-bgk7BHZJnaFFBr3PDj4ZnSSGeGNdQ70F7dv91iQrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfU9PrC9a+MGnJ=Es1yir_asHB3p1=9GfxZZ0iSe+At+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfRBYkrniWQ+vtPULTURnvyV792QNGvr8JhhZpGQ0MSdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NerRzHYsRqcUAkAjHX23PYVF4Jv0wKcd33vXRRg+-0EAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NekPk0TuAZW_jmTDYQHd8JP3GsrA0qrKYrnyqSSk3qwxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc8hkrc3dYefTPWi-mUCtZD+oYsrobCK1KjmVGRnNfMCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NejrFAT3RK7i0W46HkQNJjhPxbhzQiL=3fcrceidTzHNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcCwZWPHuZ0UR8_jyCUsaTrYKzLD8zUKwChYaCL06yT9A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfS8PKOMHcP5s_Nsp5K5eWJfXWRF-vNEau_ekqTRwE=wA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfqSXFR9R5wf1USg-zs+nvdohQFq99kQL2DiapXvUdEqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ncj40JwrW6UB+TVFvymByU5Y9iFv5QroWhwUzkLrS2DTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:53:12 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ELLHWZ5IbPkvE3NmUhwrI1RnbkE
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqd38grUh9q57a-H29GsMx5Dpv9VE0iBMO7v_-y97zZZUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/oik46SPgUFwL_02_Ucmfh-LFiRU>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:53:16 -0000

At Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:19:33 +0800,
Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> wrote:

> [LS]: I don't think it is a problem caused by secure DHCPv6. DHCPv6
> also has this problem. If the two clients share one same transaction-id,
> how the server distinguish two clients? And a new transaction-id is
> generated for Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response message,
> two clients may also generate the same transaction-id.

There seems to be some fundamental confusion about transaction-id.  In
bare DHCPv6, the transaction-id is for each client to match a response
with the message it sent (distinguishing from other messages the
client might have sent in parallel).  So there's no problem even if
multiple clients use the same transaction ID at the same time.  This
is a new problem introduced in your proposal.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email