Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Wed, 26 September 2012 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@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 0D2AF21F87E5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.829, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 HbLC+lPEUfch for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BA821F87CB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKA51973; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:12:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:11:37 +0100
Received: from SZXEML426-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.34) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:12:27 +0100
Received: from SZXEML525-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.168]) by szxeml426-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.34]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:12:24 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNeWDySDMOAnuzpUmlatl1eCUEGJdt5P4AgCx5BwCAADDJgIAASXKAgAGR98A=
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:12:24 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0755CBD0@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <4D779082-B182-4728-9534-39456573682E@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4EA3B4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C4668ED@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <8AC1BB64-BA6D-4395-ABA7-1F317C3550D0@nominum.com> <D4AB11DA-0815-4E79-A097-F9B408210D81@employees.org> <C53F80F0-F243-4A0D-B03D-BDEE4B4246BC@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C53F80F0-F243-4A0D-B03D-BDEE4B4246BC@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:12:47 -0000


> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ted
> Lemon
> 发送时间: 2012年9月25日 22:18
> 收件人: Ole Trøan
> 抄送: dhc WG
> 主题: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
> 
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> > the use of a relay message is purely to get around the 3315 restriction of
> using a link-local address.
> > the client is local to the node. assume for arguments sake that in the
> implementation the client is acting also as the relay.
> 
> I suspected as much.   IMHO, this is the wrong thing to do.   Just use the
> tunnel endpoint address instead of the link-local address in the case where
> there is no link-local address.   You'd have to make this standards-track and
> update RFC3315, but I think that's okay.   There's no magic to using the

Hi Ted,

In fact, one of the co-authors had ever proposed to update RFC3315 for the purpose of relaxing that limitation of using link-local addresses. However, since it will cause changes to the protocol specifications and especially the implementations of DHCP servers, we co-authors finally reached a consensus that we'd better avoid updating RFC3315 if possible.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> link-local address on broadcast interfaces—it's just the one address we can
> always count on the client having.   Of course, in this case we can't count on
> that, and if you look at section 1.1 of RFC3315 and section 11, you can see that	
> the standard already accounts for cases where the link-local address is not
> used.   Actually, it looks like the spec may have a bug with respect to unicast
> that needs to be fixed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg