Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 3793A12D129 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 lfKY207h0K4c for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::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 8D34712D0AD for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f6so33849165lfg.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+t4mkYQfSkYHhA3sWrOfZp3uSao83nU1a611MJXypZc=; b=PF6l8Jlko8qkRLSrkpyTRmchqrSFm+E31iCjY9qmjDfLmTarhjtV5vSJVZCycg6YMk Rx17on4CJXGYn4tSbhUV71mI+KznJNEHNBYNjxPDwbqJdjAVkY1ZC/h1I+Y4b8u8sL6Y ae/iZlZsA8Y4kV0W9FuhXv52nUES9i6AMwVOapG6Mb7y7lUomqaKApmBci+kfGQZ2i5T hNqQsfPDbjdf6Du9orUMvkfFNWICE0U+SIi4xcGUbTUHTl6Ut92EYNACDONEvPpaC3LR jh23gqQkhcKWIS9ZNmVIQgs7zEZ9EB0wGnopxjmXfkq+FB2OeOz0S4qUp5u+NAtzkjK7 OSig==
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=+t4mkYQfSkYHhA3sWrOfZp3uSao83nU1a611MJXypZc=; b=gcGnT36/NRGveMeN1CB/6PBJ5HDqOkNKh3oery60n2SZ/83CRbckKBKNwUmqbYucTT yjRCU4O2NNfGcfmMrbkpUP7duith4waGZhyuA4S9CFgzfN1QZ7nAS7G54fmrS+YFzyDL KWaEEsbULUldgOZo2ZYy4pql3ApbU65wFdzNeAlpmtB50CRU+UTVHdKEOJt6GrEjrP9I SL6/EurYazm09u3ZeyFhopj5MgalZG9YeUXtf3ahcud91oqrV052bh9WR7x9o4Lvk4lu RVYqKoYWkRexF+/cKZQQyEgfmoPVLdVnPifF3kUpOdN91+B3Ep64c6Zs90WoC7pk5HuB T67w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJV7MWrFoMd4Gmoh+p6exlywmKJMfzx3drpXb3GvJtL7Azxxi8dk+KLi17EQ83Kwc2BMci7pDaZajldog==
X-Received: by 10.46.9.13 with SMTP id 13mr1987754ljj.2.1468006281753; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.219 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D3A57660.30335%volz@cisco.com>
References: <20160708041305.18785.16916.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FDE950BA-7E7F-4D7E-912C-C324B628A246@cisco.com> <adb4507f1c9947478d3e613271a98367@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <39274946-2955-4C49-B288-6FEC48A03D13@cisco.com> <D3A57660.30335%volz@cisco.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:30:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kyEopf2fy1wnny9CrODNxjmbHqYVJfFxYvdeUvGbPaig@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b1574f3cd64053724d896
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/uVTgqKUT30hCo5l-s9FhvOFyVp0>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Enke Chen \(enkechen\)" <enkechen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 19:31:27 -0000

We went a fair distance down the relay agent chaining rathole a few years
ago:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation-01
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kurapati-dhc-relay-chaining-dhcpv4-02

The effort was abandoned because IPv4...

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> I don’t understand this at all. Unless you explicitly configured a Relay 2
> to always use port X when sending to Relay 1, where in the Packet from the
> Server (which comes from Relay 3) would Relay 2 know where to send the
> packet. You don’t want to have to have relay 2 remember this.
>
> - Bernie
>
> From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
> Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 at 3:23 PM
> To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
> Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>, "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <
> enkechen@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the initial comment.
>
> We intend for this option to be hop-by-hop behavior instead of
> end-to-end. For example, in below DHCP devices topology:
>
> Client <—> Relay-1(x) <——> Relay-2(y) <—> Relay-3(z) <—> Server
>
> where (x, y, z) are the non-standard UDP source ports used by the
> relay agents of 1, 2 and 3.
>
> This DHCPv6 option is meant only between the two neighbors. When
> the Relay-2 receives from Relay-1, or the Relay-3 receives from Relay-2,
> or the Server receives from Relay-3, the implementation can easily
> setup the previous relay agent IPv6 address to the UDP port binding
> locally. When the reply message comes back in the other direction,
> the binding can be retrieved hop-by-hop, and optionally the binding
> can be discarded after.
>
> This restricts the issue between the two DHCPv6 neighbors and there
> is no state needs to be carried end-to-end for the DHCPv6 messages.
> This will also scale better if the relay cascading extend to N stages.
>
> thanks.
> - Naiming
>
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> Some initial comments:
>
> 1.       For DHCPv4, the zero length option can work since there is no
> provision for relay chaining.
> 2.       For DHCPv6, the zero length option does NOT work since this
> provides no means for a case where Relay 1 uses port X which is sent to
> Relay 2 which uses port Y to send to the Server. The server can response to
> Relay 2 on port Y (since that is the incoming port), but there is no place
> for Relay 2 to have stored the port. You should go back and make this
> option a 2 octet option with the port number. The server would then see:
> Relay-Forw from Relay 2
>                 Relay Port Source Port option Y
>                 Relay-Message option
>                                 Relay-Forw from Relay 1
>                                                 Relay Port source Port
> option X
>                                                 Relay- Message Option
>                                                                 <client’s
> request>
>                 And all would work correctly as the Server would use the
> port Y from the outermost relay option, relay 2 would use the port X from
> the Relay 1 Relay-Forw.
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
> *From:* dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Naiming Shen (naiming)
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2016 12:29 AM
> *To:* dhcwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [dhcwg] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We have updated the draft of “Generalized Source UDP Port of DHCP Relay”.
> Please review and comment.
>
> Thanks.
> - Naiming
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
> *Subject: I-D Action: draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt*
> *Date: *July 7, 2016 at 9:13:05 PM PDT
> *To: *<i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> *Reply-To: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>        Title           : Generalized Source UDP Port of DHCP Relay
>        Authors         : Naiming Shen
>                          Enke Chen
> Filename        : draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01.txt
> Pages           : 7
> Date            : 2016-07-07
>
> Abstract:
>   This document extends the DHCP and DHCPv6 protocols for the UDP
>   transport from relay agent to server and allows the port to be any
>   valid number on the DHCP relay system.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shen-dhc-client-port/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-shen-dhc-client-port-01
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>