IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.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 E8A3211E80CC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 6OjphVIPQVdT for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E3111E8098 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJL32680; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:44:51 -0700
Received: from SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:44:49 -0700
Received: from szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.140]) by SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.153]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:44:42 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
Thread-Index: AQHNePgJ6EjzoGF6j0KwHUjTOoQDGZdXH58ggAAgh9CAAdqGoIAA+BcggAE/oYCAAESVIIAAe8iA//+K1eA=
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:44:41 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F0668F@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <2DCA645F-CDDF-4311-8417-3A9771AD3F71@nominum.com> <90903C21C73202418A48BFBE80AEE5EB0D028F@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F0504A@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <90903C21C73202418A48BFBE80AEE5EB0D40AF@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F060CC@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1FCEAFB3-2942-4D31-B955-DCC167F69562@nominum.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F06653@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3447D11C-E8F9-470E-8307-017CA2DF7C99@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3447D11C-E8F9-470E-8307-017CA2DF7C99@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.31]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F0668Fszxeml545mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:45:59 -0000

The assumption we take here is: this is a fully DHCPv6-managed network, SLACC through RA is not allowed.

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi); dhc WG
Subject: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
The scenario is just like RA broadcast prefix for stateless address configuration. The only different is broadcast though DHCPv6.

So why not use RA in this case?

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status