IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Reg RFC6704 (Forcerenew Nonce Authentication)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 11 September 2012 20:39 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 F00C121F8713 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 NKKDEsAqP5Sm for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5559121F86FF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUE+hfhNVB3fnirWKMi0+ysZKDHYYWmC9@postini.com; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:27 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 7F8C81B85AC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (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 7108019005C; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:39:26 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "<curtis@occnc.com>" <curtis@occnc.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Reg RFC6704 (Forcerenew Nonce Authentication)
Thread-Index: AQHNkE8cKpbVbNLxRMad4YyhUAitE5eGD8kA
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:39:25 +0000
Message-ID: <5F1BEB17-0FC5-4C84-A189-90BFBE868D7B@nominum.com>
References: <201209111856.q8BIuCJS024680@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com>
In-Reply-To: <201209111856.q8BIuCJS024680@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com>
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: <7E6866101963BD409305E144A792CFE6@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Reg RFC6704 (Forcerenew Nonce Authentication)
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:39:28 -0000

I didn't say that FORCERENEW for DHCPINFORM clients was hard.   I said it would impact performance.   We would go from DHCPINFORM being a lightweight read-only operation to a heavyweight read/write operation.   I guess we could forgo the sync-before-ack logic of stateful DHCP, but this would add a lot of complexity to a performance-critical code section.

So yeah, from an implementation point of view, I don't really like this idea.   It seems trivial until you think about the impact it has either on performance or on implementation complexity.   If there's strong demand for it with a clear use case, then I think that's fine.    I wasn't able to tease one out of your rather dense message—could you try to state your use case in a short paragraph or two?

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status