IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: question re REBIND in RFC 3315 (DHCPv6)

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 27 June 2013 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 EC8E321F9D56 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BtXmRsz5TXjM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D08E21F969F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n1so601054qcw.30 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=T4ALe9Qn1OcS8DbkiX2EKOflPVoPoSGoXetklJYTnqc=; b=A/pc77iC/1BrksUpgCL6ZgGM105Rb23yATaGYY5ydiLsgIW9ZAHjqeTMODTlEPBJaT 4qvIbgqRv5tRWSHF0ztQMH3UTTAHx1u4Mr3cqWItOiQI5uqr7pMYn4YmGK8UX0seojfo jVOKShtYrXWFd9nWut9z4AiflQbyfMW8kjIgAKys2NytamDGOK09Q5ykW3qBtbvi4bLe CL0BkclbLeXaUseQpZYfCDkBZmmrgHWU6DCECV/itMiJtLxW1b6hn+TnhR1XVBeI8vlh 8P9DUyOQAlQFHc4GeAcdZI+WtfG/lITwAVhCl1YIeOLMKKFwQ96qe6urbFy8EoQVcqh1 Motg==
X-Received: by 10.49.16.197 with SMTP id i5mr11290290qed.58.1372347309861; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-i7prhfzrgrwle.d.cisco.com ([2001:420:2c52:1316:f9c6:c3df:d81:5cf6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ds7sm5247822qab.13.2013.06.27.08.35.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: question re REBIND in RFC 3315 (DHCPv6)
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1372342144.3215.106.camel@karl>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:34:58 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <146A0EDF-3A96-401B-8A18-573A630967C9@gmail.com>
References: <1372290019.3215.32.camel@karl> <3ED742F1-C82A-43E3-A2CD-CAD8F1E283B1@gmail.com> <1372342144.3215.106.camel@karl>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: IETF IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:35:14 -0000

On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:09 AM 6/27/13, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:17 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> There is another difference between REBIND and RENEW: the client
>> includes the Server Identifier of the server from which the client
>> received the IA in the RENEW message (but not the REBIND).
> 
> Yes. My question could be summarised I suppose as "what's the point of
> REBIND?" You answer that:
> 
>> The idea is that some external data channel is used to replicate the
>> IA binding from the responsible server to all the other servers.
> 
> And there is no such channel.

Not yet, as part of the DHCP suite of specifications.  Other channels, such as a distributed database or grad students at keyboards calling each other, can be (have been?) used.

> As you say:
> 
>> There's no such mechanism defined in DHCPv4 (RFC 2131 and RFC 2132),
>> either.  It may be an oversight that it is not mentioned as "out of
>> scope" in RFC 3315.
> 
> The separately defined (albeit still draft) failover system is that
> mechanism for DHCPv4.
> 
> So, at the moment and absent any failover for DHCPv6, there is no point
> to REBIND except for the dubious benefit that addresses that are no good
> any more can possibly be confirmed as duds by other servers.

I would be a little more optimistic and say that REBIND is specified, (presumably) implemented and ready to use for non-DHCP mechanisms or failover (when specified).

- Ralph

> 
> Regards, K.
> 
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
> 
> GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
> Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email