IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 71F1B21F8425 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ClDUbdK01qDm for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A61C21F841E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGRNZCQjs+GJqd6ilbEXT8jEQnnUj2Sj@postini.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:13 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C3E1B8075 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EA5519005C; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:58:12 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNeWDyHUsxdHhkUUml/eENyUzBb5dt5P4AgCx5BwCAASw+gIAASXKAgAE2VICAAEWWgIAAA/2AgAAVvQCAASVVAIAAU2eA
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:58:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D94D1EEA-07FF-4327-A6EA-6F9CA751F82F@nominum.com>
References: <4D779082-B182-4728-9534-39456573682E@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4EA3B4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C4668ED@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <8AC1BB64-BA6D-4395-ABA7-1F317C3550D0@nominum.com> <D4AB11DA-0815-4E79-A097-F9B408210D81@employees.org> <C53F80F0-F243-4A0D-B03D-BDEE4B4246BC@nominum.com> <39714EDD-C5DA-4DDF-AD10-E06A934EEDAE@employees.org> <8275EA44-3606-4C82-A656-653B56009D09@nominum.com> <2144A493-A8A0-46C3-9281-1F2D58867685@employees.org> <7329B869-8093-4EDA-8490-1491D97D22D8@nominum.com> <2918F4E4-DD2D-4705-ACBC-5D6E5E0F2357@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <2918F4E4-DD2D-4705-ACBC-5D6E5E0F2357@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <CBBE47DFECAAC642AE7C7236E462E80C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:58:14 -0000

On Sep 27, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> I don't quite understand this concern. this draft describes how one can put together existing DHCP protocol modules to achieve support for links that do not support link-local addresses and multicast.

This is really a two-bad-choices situation.   If you add a relay header just to hack around the restriction in the DHCP server, that's weird.   But if you hack the DHCP server to allow unicast, that's bad too, because then we'll start to see clients doing this because the implementor just tested against the server without carefully following the spec.

In practice, the ISC server currently will drop packets that are unicast.   The Nominum server, as far as I can tell, doesn't, and the return path in the Nominum server at least looks like it works for unicast packets; I suspect that's true of the ISC server as well, since unicast is an option for some packets.   Dunno what Cisco does.

I know the authors discussed this issue; quite a few people also responded saying that they were in favor of advancing this draft.   Can any of those people tell me what they think about this issue?   Can any of the usual suspects weigh in?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email