Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 30 November 2017 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 59F3A124C27; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 20kWZ5krIFAb; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 DD19F124BFA; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.92] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vAU2Uh64074049 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:30:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.92]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <FC542504-04F9-4600-93DA-5EA1E4BAD737@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6AC078DB-A21E-4F23-9275-70F47AA69A47"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:30:42 -0600
In-Reply-To: <C03BD668-FD36-4F32-B129-11CFFAB3FD79@cisco.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "dhc-chairs@ietf.org" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>
To: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
References: <151198969282.31355.16877065112899804068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <200CE2CC-D6D1-40BA-843A-1193DFFDEE74@fugue.com> <4364B55F-0BC5-42B9-965D-FEF9D9AED9C5@nostrum.com> <1F317916-E0C1-4EF5-A9C8-448FF02D3525@fugue.com> <001E840F-75A6-4D68-B029-B3665B066A45@cisco.com> <8563F7DE-86CC-45D9-BF2B-6CCB0AC292B8@fugue.com> <026179B8-61B6-4430-AA5C-A8B1ADA2CED5@cisco.com> <EC108FCE-E299-49EC-BBEF-8E3928036F39@fugue.com> <C03BD668-FD36-4F32-B129-11CFFAB3FD79@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/vBQQHSaNdw2Kg5Ln1gnCHTYYjlA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 30 Nov 2017 02:30:49 -0000

Thanks for the updates.

In 5.4, you added advice to the first paragraph that one shouldn’t turn this on unless the upstream devices support it. That’s good. But I still wonder about the intent of the second paragraph. Is the intent that the relay listens for messages on _both_ ports? Or that it could be configure to listen on either? If a message arrives on the standard port in as a result of one from a non-standard port, is it valid?

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Cool. new diff of html enclosed.
> 
> Best Regards,
> - Naiming
> 
> <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-09-from-8.diff.html>
> 
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Note that the server does not need to listen on this port, but it needs to send back
>>> the relay-reply to that port, so I modified your text a little.
>>> the HTML diff is enclosed.
>> 
>> Oops, sorry, it's been a while since I was following this closely.  So the text should say something more like this:
>> 
>> Relay agents implementing this specification may be configured instead to use a source port number other than 67, and to receive responses on that same port.  This will only work when the DHCP server or relay agent to which such a relay agent is forwarding messages is upgraded to support this extension.
>> 
>> 
>