IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65EB1201F8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 YHUt3rD0agH1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 949571201F2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id q64so1265755iof.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wVGQ+uqtOhYa1YuFWO5Z3jM4Sn4xy2ULoQJdNMMpmMc=; b=K2x1fIx6GxDZTqVnkj7RGFwQtPLLYmtWTRKhOQWiL4z/ijo0tMQLfkA9p/DI4HXVP4 GemBj9dDeagWJJdJu/AVwIE1YiBfT3xQ2S9QZr6wFtO/E32SkJaf8+tTZZ+mNvp+j6IR ztvEy8W5v7mBQN2Ge/6JGvBwEvhsUBq3c/5f1/sGHRUEyep8q/UPOmvFrRuaZw/VBVAM 9F4hoIwO00VpwWYUxUv9j3woR+0W37X8sGacHIupFtp1nE7EJ5/qbNR+Bw9AD/DAJ1U1 k5VJsFNZyHRprWa6hm5XwoOdGquM6j/0qkabPpgk0xNJ4FlVRKroYDymhdF3OwRn1qKz zi9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wVGQ+uqtOhYa1YuFWO5Z3jM4Sn4xy2ULoQJdNMMpmMc=; b=rSKJTurC+kdKHX3VHUab3TGuAHVTCjqvSoGpqt+zsO4Yg0WzMuoHkbUjejGOyaEGkP EZZoUqNAEruibbVRoQkSKQoQ5g82/T6STYRts7hp9pVoUe3CdZdKEvV5IE6RGzmw2eMM BLirwinHFOKrFPVq9T7I3CK9V5MrS3Gu1/LXcuf78t/4AHk+XWhz/8sunF50Xw3cQvOO vBrhmchIXy+mewV964h7Gotg9t+gWuYhVl33nm/rZd691UikPOYG78hIJ+nK7QciWTIV AcMZNFV6BeNPLAVjapdlBgPmpe7rWuRQmt9dz+5fTHwCELsg21Grmhtq9tuMt4QngEb3 hRZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7XbV3hs44LL5SsRsRaB8TtFUwb7fheHvpNrZA+4CTw0p4NX1Rp SSOq4Kze0P6DltWA2g8qsI2Hxd7bK2fNB+hP1COH3FkxJAs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYNz+IEjKWAMyaM4d4ZnR76rKOByFT+5+Z/d6Ja99lhIrjeasj1AVY3QKWkZX+k40eMeoJnvhYLSaj6+CGLcMg=
X-Received: by 10.107.16.206 with SMTP id 75mr12011707ioq.83.1511140592472; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.16.155 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:16:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3d606744-a2b6-e310-da5e-39f46c21e5a7@gmail.com>
References: <151090059151.22321.3357672601322845792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E838C63E-7612-4AA4-9375-854C184D699E@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQKoWPcEFQZgU3k_d0gUL4en6d2pyNq1V4RMNZ6HrSG8w@mail.gmail.com> <649be36e-5006-7688-448f-bc2794d6a39c@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3WC+vwL_=0PeiJ_D85NqFVTCkb8c83x-ZtGhAbSELGMA@mail.gmail.com> <5A119443.2030108@foobar.org> <3d606744-a2b6-e310-da5e-39f46c21e5a7@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:16:11 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3UpNEOrf5tAf=8rWrRHu+hFVyH6DBuPR2gdS2j9bvkXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problem statement [was Re: New Version Notification for draft-hinden-ipv4flag-00.txt]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eda96390524055e5fd633"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XCm5GwfmlQbT8KWkQ-8gMOVuTy8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 01:16:35 -0000

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> The hypothesis of this draft is that there is no IPv4 support, hence
> nobody to send a DHCP(v4) reply.
>
> otoh, unable to resist solutionism even in this thread, a minor update
> to RFC2131 would allow battery-powered devices to slow down the
> DHCPDISCOVER rate as much as they want to.
>

I don't think the backoff schedule of current clients is dictated so much
by RFC2131 (e.g., Android already uses 120 seconds instead of 64) as it is
by operational expectations: if IPv4 appears you probably want to start
using it after a reasonable amount of time. In the absence of explicit
indication from the network, is it reasonable to back off sending
DHCPDISCOVER to once per hour? Day? Week? Year?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email