IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] What triggers a DHCP Information Request?

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 17 October 2014 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC261A007E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 40PHVvri1Wzc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6436B1A00BF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hi2so1919614wib.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=udiEEURGlVMtx4oVNIFXYYSzOovnzkI2y7N9vB/BUIA=; b=FcPuH4zsuyWdalFjWwcTHvitnSfUVhkI3zFe3SvQG3GNOKRN1I9wsUqYgy1rmdJ4iM YC2RxnfyCqI1rFIJYttY2s3vIyD/P0mLxlvGmIVYBOP9sgK6KKecTspg3J+kxiRr0HHu KJJT+lXRXIiT6NzUCWYXlfoOTruInytEWISXszxOcW6aEQdGmEpkdMVHpYKw4tlKxafo sYqLL1TF//G1Dtsw3/M0iU7TLLwvgmCGE9/NDlQ3EZK27zu/Jysegk9t8FNZxr933xbN 6Mz4BfyOxIVx6GxWDWoycC4FbxrlBnuhJhVqxtDpPE0pfJ4To2A7quc8hUGRO50O7BLw hmQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.8 with SMTP id m8mr12602460wjq.43.1413568996063; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.195.13.83 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E37A320E-203D-408D-87E2-9A1D04A906AE@fugue.com>
References: <E37A320E-203D-408D-87E2-9A1D04A906AE@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:16 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: odjBOXxdgnS38HB9qkkOS26KsY0
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeX8ztZhHfZn=qXovL4MyXoJ8z5zYDgg70sdbG0otorWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/yociHG097b-VD196VvUVLdSEB5Y
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] What triggers a DHCP Information Request?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:03:21 -0000

At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:53:06 -0500,
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> When a new router is seen that sets the 'O' bit in its RA?   When a new prefix is seen, for the same router?   Only when a new link is detected?
>
> I think that it should happen whenever a new prefix is seen for a router that's set the O bit, but Lorenzo Colitti thinks that a new prefix doesn't (and shouldn't) trigger a new Information Request.
>
> Any thoughts about this?

Are you asking what should happen per the protocol specification
(RFCs), or what should happen operationally?  Or what actual
implementations do, or something else?

Regarding the first, my understanding is that this is actually open.
As you probably know, the semantics of 'O' bit is way too unclear
(partially intentionally so at the time of RFC 4861, and has never
been clarified sufficiently).  So, for example, triggering DHCPv6
information request based on seeing a new IPv6 prefix is not a
protocol-defined behavior, but wouldn't break the protocol either.

I don't know whether there's a commonly agreed behavior of different
implementations.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email