IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

"Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmudric@avaya.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dmudric@avaya.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 35344129BC7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:37:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 4BDE02nLIor5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5071D129BC0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2ESAQASmpxY/xUHmMZdGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm8hQWGBCQeNWpIJkyeCD4IMhiICgmo/GAECAQEBAQEBAQNfKIRpAQEBAQMSG0wQAgEIDQEDBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEDgUIGolSAaU7jQcmAosnAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYZNhG6BPIMaNIJ+gjEFiXSRfAGcZ4YvkxMfOX5PFYUAHYFhdYZEK4EDAYELAQEB
X-IPAS-Result: A2ESAQASmpxY/xUHmMZdGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm8hQWGBCQeNWpIJkyeCD4IMhiICgmo/GAECAQEBAQEBAQNfKIRpAQEBAQMSG0wQAgEIDQEDBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEDgUIGolSAaU7jQcmAosnAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYZNhG6BPIMaNIJ+gjEFiXSRfAGcZ4YvkxMfOX5PFYUAHYFhdYZEK4EDAYELAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,137,1484024400"; d="scan'208,217";a="190094964"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2017 11:37:13 -0500
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-US1EXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.85.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Feb 2017 11:37:12 -0500
Received: from AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com ([fe80::a5d3:ad50:5be9:1922]) by AZ-US1EXHC02.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:37:11 -0500
From: "Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmudric@avaya.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
Thread-Index: AdKCVGJ7VzCckicuS8ujStD5DUW3kQAAXlQAAADH2iAAAEJQgAAATJqQAAClqeAAH3aUcAAClxKAAAGY9gD///saAIAADr9wgAA6TwCAAFLTEP//ubmAgABS6jD//68/gIAAUzJQ//+28gAACnV4EAAKQI6AAB7vbSA=
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:37:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA18B12@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com>
References: <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA186B9@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <531b6fa753a441c19f1d47958f20b659@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA18717@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <240e4b5573614422a42abec328872c0b@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA18746@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <fd3365190bd445b1ad00a7d8043530dd@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA188B2@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <6792EF5E-8C1F-4D3B-BC6D-8D2EA011BF31@cisco.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA1890A@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <36880D80-601D-42BF-92F1-3E1B3A59A8FD@cisco.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA1892A@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <15160861-4D37-4A5E-900A-8AD688218EEF@fugue.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA1898F@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <C16D3614-AD9E-4AB3-915B-5288DB0EB239@fugue.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA189BD@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <0540D77C-E307-4B96-A53B-81599408C8F7@fugue.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA189F9@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <A3AFA8FF-FDEF-4058-814A-E687D5CC2969@fugue.com> <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA18ABB@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com> <A023117A-2B06-4660-88B9-9AB183F05B66@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <A023117A-2B06-4660-88B9-9AB183F05B66@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.11.85.50]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E457AA18B12AZUS1EXMB03glob_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/wiCw_NFSFFEzkfz4EulEZJrcnsM>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 09 Feb 2017 16:37:17 -0000

The application does the semantic check for the address and, if the address is semantically correct, checks if the device using the offered address can be reached within the domain the in which device has to communicate. If, for example, the device has to be globally reachable, the address has to be an unreserved, or not deprecated, global address.

Dusan

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
Cc: Bernie Volz; dhcwg
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition

On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <dmudric@avaya.com<mailto:dmudric@avaya.com>> wrote:
The DHCPv6 client gets the address. Since I did not want to change the client, I passed the address to the application to do the validation. The application found out the address is not usable. The client can get a feedback from the application that the address is not usable, or the client can be configured with the policy rules to validate the address itself.

How does the application determine that the address is not usable?   What is the validation process?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email