IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 26 September 2012 12:41 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 8B58021F8853 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, 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 UdeYAdoPFwZV for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE42521F8817 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGL4BB1oXls1bu+kBA/UdYvVpdCBv/yA@postini.com; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:41 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 102391B8322 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (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 0309119005C; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:41:34 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNeWDyHUsxdHhkUUml/eENyUzBb5dt5P4AgCx5BwCAASw+gIAASXKAgAEsMwCAAEswgA==
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:41:32 +0000
Message-ID: <2F7703E0-D017-4CCC-8AF8-CDFA8644040F@nominum.com>
References: <4D779082-B182-4728-9534-39456573682E@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4EA3B4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C4668ED@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <8AC1BB64-BA6D-4395-ABA7-1F317C3550D0@nominum.com> <D4AB11DA-0815-4E79-A097-F9B408210D81@employees.org> <C53F80F0-F243-4A0D-B03D-BDEE4B4246BC@nominum.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0755CBD0@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0755CBD0@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <82780169F887B04A8C410978EE486FA6@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:41:41 -0000

On Sep 26, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
 wrote:
> In fact, one of the co-authors had ever proposed to update RFC3315 for the purpose of relaxing that limitation of using link-local addresses. However, since it will cause changes to the protocol specifications and especially the implementations of DHCP servers, we co-authors finally reached a consensus that we'd better avoid updating RFC3315 if possible.

Why is it so important not to update RFC3315?   And what changes would be required to DHCP servers?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email