Re: [mif-arch-dt] Strawman solution proposals for DHCPv6 and RA support for multiple provisioning domains

Dmitry,

On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> 11. The formatting of how variable number of sub options in the container is accommodated in ND vs DHCP, is different - in one cases, there is a field, explicitly indicating number of options, in addition to the length of the container and each option, in the other case it is based purely on lengths. Is there a reason for that?
> 
> Different alignment requirements with ND and DHCP. This obviously requires some more thinking how to make encodings more alike.
> 
> Regarding the options count in ND that comes from the way the current signature field is added into the container option. If the signature becomes a sub-option itself, there would be no need for the count field.
> 
>> 12. OPTION_PVD_ID in ND has ID-Length, in DHCP it doesn't. Similarly,  differences in the \0-padding language.
> 
> 
> That is mainly because in ND options length is multiple of 8 octets where are in DHCP options have no alignment requirements. The same principle was brought into sub-options. However, regarding sub-option in the container for ND, we could possible drop the alignment requirements if that becomes a sticking point.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It seems my short term memory is failing or something.. for ND container we need to maintain 8 octet alignment, since we allow embedding existing ND options as sub-options. Existing ND options have strict alignment requirements and no way to indicate smaller length counts than 8 octets. I would love to use existing code to parse option (whether they are inside the PVD container or not).

- Jouni

> Regarding padding, I rather keep the it explicit how the padding is done when such is needed.
> 
> - JOuni
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: mif-arch-dt-bounces@ietf.org <mif-arch-dt-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:00 AM
>> To: mif-arch-dt@ietf.org
>> Subject: [mif-arch-dt] Strawman solution proposals for DHCPv6 and RA support for multiple provisioning domains
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> One of the action items from the meeting two weeks ago was to write up
>> a strawman solution proposal for DHCP and RA options to carry
>> information about multiple provisioning domains. Jouni, Shwetha and I
>> worked on it and came up with these initial drafts. We would love to
>> hear your comments.
>> 
>> The DHCP version is at
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kkb-mpvd-dhcp-support-00
>> 
>> The RA version is at
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kk-mpvd-ndp-support-00
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Suresh, Jouni and Shwetha
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif-arch-dt mailing list
>> mif-arch-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif-arch-dt
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif-arch-dt mailing list
>> mif-arch-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif-arch-dt
> 