RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24
"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Wed, 15 May 2002 19:38 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19717 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:38:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA25315 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:38:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25133; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25108 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19650 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:37:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7att.ericy.com [138.85.224.158]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g4FJaji28808 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:36:45 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from eamrcnt747.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt747.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.37]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g4FJaiQ24516 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:36:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: FROM eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se BY eamrcnt747.exu.ericsson.se ; Wed May 15 14:36:43 2002 -0500
Received: by eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <KVLD5KQL>; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:36:43 -0500
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D428@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: 'JINMEI Tatuya / ????' <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:36:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1FC47.D3DF7840"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Jinmei: Regarding (1), based on -24 the server shouldn't be sending an Advertise. And, yes, I think your assumption that the client should discard it is correct. Having said that, I would like to see the Rapid Commit change to be more of just an option. A server set up to respond to Rapid Commit would send the Reply. Other servers could send an Advertise. The client would use the Reply if received; otherwise simply start using the Advertises as if a Solicit w/o Rapid Commit was done. Regarding (2), good question ... I would say it should. The logic might simply be send a Solicit, wait IRT, check if any Advertises received ... if so, go use them otherwise send Solicit again. Regarding (3), your understanding is correct. I can't see that it hurts for us to indicate that RAND be greater than 0. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp [mailto:jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:17 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 I have some additional comments (and questions) on dhcpv6-24, particularly about server solicitation. (1) If the client sent a solicit message with a rapid commit option but the server responds to the solicitation with an advertise message, what should the client do? Should it ignore the advertise, should it accept the advertise and send a request, or others? Section 17.1.4 says ...If the client does not receive a Reply message, the client restarts the server solicitation process by sending a Solicit message that does not include a Rapid Commit option. So, the client should probably ignore the advertise (and keep waiting for a reply.) But I'm not 100% sure about this. (2) Section 17.1.2 says: If the client is waiting for an Advertise message, the mechanism in section 14 is modified as follows for use in the transmission of Solicit messages. The message exchange is not terminated by the receipt of an Advertise before IRT has elapsed. Rather, the client collects Advertise messages until IRT has elapsed. Should this rule apply if the client is retransmitting solicit messages? For example, suppose that there is no advertise in response to the first solicit, and so the client retransmit the solicit. If the client then receives a first advertise, should it still wait until IRT elapses? (3) The paragraph above then says: Also, the first RT MUST be selected to be strictly greater than IRT by choosing RAND to be strictly greater than 0. However, according to Section 13, the first RT should be RT = 2*IRT + RAND*IRT where RAND is a random number chosen with a uniform distribution between -0.1 and +0.1. Thus, RT >= 2*IRT - 0.1*IRT = 1.9 * IRT >= IRT (the rightmost '=' is satisfied only when IRT is 0) So the RT should always be greater than IRT regardless of the value of RAND, and "by choosing RAND to be strictly greater than 0" seems to be redundant. Is my understanding correct? JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24 Bernie Volz (EUD)