IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 15:44 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 2B06521F87FB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, 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 pHxJsONQA-hP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5913821F87E3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIAj5rnSHHse7F+mbuYk0Ab+wrdU9G2b@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:38 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 9820D1B8344 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (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 8FC3919005C; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:44:37 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6
Thread-Index: AQHNrTmjFOygSqT8jUKurJPUyMWVCpe/kLMAgAAVjoCAAAD+AIAAApkA
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:44:36 +0000
Message-ID: <F411BADE-1C6D-4663-8578-18F2D621573A@nominum.com>
References: <4B380728-0A9D-4B98-85C8-A723667C2676@nominum.com> <50800ECC.8060608@viagenie.ca> <5E8961DA-7D45-433C-A73F-FC6D1C230E67@nominum.com> <508021B6.2060906@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <508021B6.2060906@viagenie.ca>
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="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <38124E2456618A438D202AABDA77FCBA@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6
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, 18 Oct 2012 15:44:39 -0000

On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
 wrote:
> The message would indeed go down the tunnel to the server. But remember that the CPE only has a partial IPv4 address on that tunnel interface. Messages sent from the server to the CPE's IPv4 address at port 68 will reach the CPE whose port range includes 68, not necessarily the CPE that sent the request. The result is that messages from client to server will work, but the reply will be lost.

Ah, I see.   You are talking about lightweight 4over6.   This is indeed a problem, but only when address sharing is in use.   The dhcpv4-over-ipv6 draft is a general-purpose document, not specifically for lightweight 4over6.   So I recommended to the authors that they address this use case in a separate document, since this document was quite far along in the publication process when the address sharing issue came up.

But of course this recommendation is just my personal recommendation—if the working group would prefer to fold the address pool work into this document, I don't have any objection.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status