Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I'm not the author of the document.   I was present in Buenos Aires for the
presentation.   The presentation was convincing.   To briefly answer your
questions, DHCPINFORM does not require a database write.   DHCPREQUEST
does.   Forcerenew nonce is a very cheap authentication scheme--there is no
digital signature.

That said, if you are resisting this proposal, it may be because it doesn't
make sense for your devices.   The authors of this proposal don't intend
that it be applicable to all use cases, and in particular (admittedly with
an outsider's knowledge) I do not see why this would be a useful feature to
add to an Avaya product.   That's what applicability statements are for.

I suppose you could do your best to just kill this proposal so that you
don't have to implement it, but given that there is an identified need for
this in a real-world deployment, doing so would be creating a hassle for
someone else.   So it woudl be better, if you don't mind, to focus your
efforts on making sure that the applicability statement for this document
doesn't cover devices that you think it should not cover.


On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> If this was the answer, “being able to get the client to refresh its
> config information without updating its lease is a substantial savings”,
> why is IPv4 address update so much more demanding than the DHCPv4
> DHCPFORCEINFORENEW with authentication? Can you provide more details please
> (impacts on DHCPv4 server, clients, network)?
>
>
>
> Dusan
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:26 PM
>
> *To:* Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
> *Cc:* Tomek Mrugalski; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for
> draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)
>
>
>
> I already answered that question in my previous reply.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> This is the only reference I found
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dhc-6.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_proceedings_95_slides_slides-2D95-2Ddhc-2D6.pdf&d=CwMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=BzvF_BAx29HABskqTZPToA36ycN_GkeEca5PoEZADao&s=xYGBNGgztvEiaK2mg5zgFTmOG8pRT2D4chP58XUawMc&e=>
> . It does not talk about the problems when RECONFIGURE is not supported.
> The DHCP clients can get the new configuration parameters during the RENEW,
> at T1. Why is this not good enough and which deployment scenarios require
> immediate updates using RECONFIGURE?
>
>
>
> Dusan
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:52 PM
>
>
> *To:* Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
> *Cc:* Tomek Mrugalski; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for
> draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)
>
>
>
> It's in the IETF 95 proceedings.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Is there a link  to that presentation? Are there problem statements for
> cloud deployments?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dusan.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:13 PM
> *To:* Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
> *Cc:* Tomek Mrugalski; [e-mail]
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for
> draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)
>
>
>
> There was a detailed presentation on this in Buenos Aires.   The bottom
> line is that if you have a large number of devices, the additional load of
> updating the database for every forcerenew becomes substantial, and being
> able to get the client to refresh its config information without updating
> its lease is a substantial savings.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Can somebody please provide examples of deployment needs for DHCPv6
> RECONFIGURE message (or DHCPv4 DHCPFORCEINFORENEW), for both stateful and
> stateless DHCPv6 clients?
>
> Regards,
> Dusan Mudric.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for
> draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)
>
> Good DHC people,
>
> This is just a reminder that we have adoption call in progress, but so far
> the number of responses is... disappointing. This is a very short (4 pages
> of technical text) I-D. Please take a quick look and state whether you're
> ok with it. Or better yet, review it thoroughly and post your comments.
> Your opinion and your comments are much appreciated.
>
> The adoption call will end early next week.
>
> With my co-chair hat off, I support adoption of this draft. It is short,
> well motivated (good explanation what the problem is and why it needs
> solving) and reasonable draft. In my opinion it simply introduces parity
> between DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 (v6 has the capability to reconfigure options
> only since RFC3315 was published in 2003). This mechanism has been around
> for well over a decade and is operationally proven to work.
>
> Tomek
>
> On 22.04.2016 16:48, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > At the IETF-95 DHC WG session, Luyuan Fang gave a presentation on
> > draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Forcerenew
> > Reconfiguration Extensions for DHCPv4) - see
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_proceedings_95_slides_slides-2D95-2Ddhc-2D6.pdf&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=fdrSa2jxD0SbN3vaFTNMwWC_yclWLZ8spS0pKJEMjx4&e=
> .
> >
> > There was a brief discussion about whether there was sufficient
> > interest in the WG to take on this work and the conclusion was to take
> > it to the list (which we would have needed to do anyway).
> >
> > So, we are starting an Adoption Call for this draft
> > (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dfang-2Ddhc-2Ddhcpv4-2Dforcerenew-2Dextensions-2D02&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=so5zarbh0Ii_cWj1iC6ifCVWHmBw4WeoVLdfUi7fu9E&e=
> ).
> >
> > Please respond by May 8, 2016 whether you support having the WG take
> > on this work. Please note that this means YOU need to be involved in
> > resolving open issues, reading draft updates, and otherwise actively
> > participating to move this work forward.
> >
> > The abstract from the draft is:
> >
> >    This document extends the definition of the DHCPFORCERENEW message
> >    for parameter reconfiguration in DHCPv4. This extension makes the
> >    DHCPFORCERENEW message more suitable to reconfigure configuration
> >    parameters other than IP addresses, and aligns the behavior of the
> >    reconfiguration procedure in DHCPv4 to the corresponding behavior in
> >    DHCPv6.
> >
> > While not directly on the WG's current charter, we have confirmed with
> > our AD (Suresh) that this would be acceptable work for us to adopt (no
> > re-chartering will be necessary).
> >
> > -          Tomek and Bernie
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dhcwg&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=PVv9LskHr2eCb4z-MQ6MzHHJxv7ehdNMUO9uhkCGxZk&e=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dhcwg&d=CwMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=IMp0tLq-MuNu9erA4e0AQLU6-UlKPST4lFi_Kde9q4E&s=ilLHNVHnEv3M03ZNFRr9_q6JrgYyuXBCxSvinBLLdQY&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>