Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Fri, 26 January 2024 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@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 3102DC1516F8 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:41:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNPszRRaELol for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9C5C151064 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2cf3a04ea1cso1451411fa.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:41:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706258482; x=1706863282; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7t71W5W9ICCZAxnhCinesaXKraWRZmvV6i9IziVkWpc=; b=nPeghl4FG/tXDWc6710/xDKk3pOiN/CfcpQPArBO1+MtfL8w8rW4y7seR7LM8/pOop +hLsadmG5pLXgDjAWqCinrt3EEpmpTk21PkBgr28Vi3REbKednsglqQNTCZ+wluROJ1P NVOzDlm9BftOaqPck2omdmq8rawirGhkYmH0L9V7hnNo8z48364gC4+yy5a2ZBZpIWb5 9du1s05mK1rqAuYhvNA/7pR8i8nnCI1X0knwAmUlBPtawW/5rBLXc1LIdY+u3dCYUCsX /GT3owlPSnLRM7g0btFDg+PE0n2bo+27+ehU+BlynBUy6nYuWKYmMUZlieKI4YlWn3Pa +F7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706258482; x=1706863282; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7t71W5W9ICCZAxnhCinesaXKraWRZmvV6i9IziVkWpc=; b=uOJuD44EFOpraV+AFAmRsJD48Y3V+VK67moRWKLjCJrbMh6uFsPsAu9wZpw7vnbZbL J8mqMuHVf1VXpyyEHQ8RHZ+NZ8U4ljp2tZrnRmlO0SRg4LIh4g0ehK229ITZTl/Ck+I9 8GALa2LP7lPfq+g2LwHb+aMBb+xpAd9QjAP2FPIuuRuwwQMJu1eUMgpoeie0FWVCFHdd uyEa+UJAX3cbDvz5ChDEI7D8xVJqlx4gC/vtlLgRtEQ+R6aZ4LS9K3FEDoHeuaP3bYi3 RdwOLk9yrMd1ZCRNvvgC+Z1fcS1G5ddZ2k1HzsC5cpFGhg+PMGpkJb2ZK9fdcZ1mT2fX IQGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwwC1cz9sOM3ajhhImC5BMwfb/iMPxbw/H6IwtkRWhyV9nevkt9 8ti0N/3b2bLv1nFSUa/zFdnioGPC6JmGTS+NVrOr0bXJtl9egiVjfwKVwayN33Gn3evghH7F7Pq VsJwQ48mQKtaqfrryEF5l3/iwvks8ZkSnn14=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE57YogCIlZ7PlXKrxlhg4I6LdTw+KnIGeqwIbXy0GGoQznEIATUm0dKN0b9JZfdjkB/0BGgfLG/lPmut2Wzxk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2401:0:b0:2cd:e926:92da with SMTP id k1-20020a2e2401000000b002cde92692damr504918ljk.88.1706258482182; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:41:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN0PR21MB3240FBA9937882A154298231F6662@MN0PR21MB3240.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN0PR21MB3240FBA9937882A154298231F6662@MN0PR21MB3240.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:41:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAQ9tqGRMht3A6qyx-3fGXZ65=KHfN2=BJp+1xTW2qy9wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aditi Patange <Aditi.Patange=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification@ietf.org" <IMCEAUNDEFINED-draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification+40ietf+2Eorg@namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ur2pIWPVOl1fzvUYCiOFDufKCK4>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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, 26 Jan 2024 08:41:25 -0000

Hi Aditi,

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:31 AM Aditi Patange
<Aditi.Patange=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I am Aditi Patange from Microsoft. I recently came across ‘Registering Self-generated IPv6 Addresses using DHCPv6’ draft and I would like to surface some questions on behalf of the Windows DHCP client team.

> Section 4.6 “Whenever the client creates an address or receives a PIO which changes the Valid Lifetime of an existing address by more than 1%”
>
> The Prefix Information Option aspect of the above statement requires the client to listen to the state of every address on every adapter, and store significant additional state. The client needs to track every address on every adapter, lifetime of each address, and has to store both the existing time as well as the newly-received time. Needless to say, this could lead to race conditions. Also, as the draft briefly acknowledged, this refresh logic would have significant power implications especially for devices running in low power mode. Can we please simplify the renewal logic to reduce computation required by the client?

I'd like to thank you for pointing this out. While discussing your
point we realized that the algorithm does have an issue: if an RA
arrives soon after the scheduled registratration event, it would cause
another packet to be sent, so it's suboptimal.

We have just submitted -09 which contains an updated algorithm which
ensures that for each address the client sends just one (well, if you
do not count retransmits) registration per the PIO lifetime, and that
updates for the addresses with same lifetimes are happening at the
same time.

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova