Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

maximilien mouton <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EF321F8B83 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CLTmL11Xtlb6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9826A21F8B1F for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so875183fxd.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ppelzVEd22jrg5Kx0TBDq8dSdiVKxfGVN2NNHUmeyu4=; b=IUTCPCu0ls/eOgwXmwAKY47V7gD43gD7iZ6BAje4/9nfxN0MblkKpTdureqF6Sl/jp 1OHF+JKRmphjgGTXVc9fxdD8vX/W7PEHaL6BUqn5kPVbrTQH7LGDDeLU1E/dD91yKw2g iHfk7C0tqTRZuiJ0qSCyMXNYW3y8iwfHExkrM=
Received: by 10.223.57.12 with SMTP id a12mr461159fah.97.1315936115798; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (scy57-1-88-169-184-224.fbx.proxad.net. [88.169.184.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6sm1014629faf.3.2011.09.13.10.48.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6F9762.5000400@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:48:18 +0200
From: maximilien mouton <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:46:30 -0000

Hi Ted,

Le 13/09/2011 15:01, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:40 AM, maximilien mouton wrote: In this case
> an Information-Request when client's lifetime expires (or is close
> to) is sufficient especially if lifetime's upper limit is higher.
>
> One thing to be crystal clear about is that even if an option is
> added that contains a lifetime, it would be a major extension of the
>  DHCP protocol to propose that the client include that lifetime in
> its calculations for when to renew.

Even if I grant It would imply big changes in DHCP, I think it would be
interesting for DHCP to imitate ND dynamic behavior because in this
draft we are trying to challenge ND by allowing DHCP to provide an
entire IP/Internet configuration by its own.

Best regards,

Maximilien

> Adding an option is a minor extension.   I would oppose a major
> extension for this purpose; I don't know how the working group as a
> whole would feel about it, but I suspect there would be a great deal
> of skepticism.
>
> The way lifetimes of configuration information are handled is either
>  with the IRT, in the case of stateless DHCPv6, or with the lease
> renewal timer, in the case of stateful.   So if you put a lifetime in
> a route option, I don't see what good it would do.
>
>