Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support-01.txt

Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621541A8A0D for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 tqLtECnMjZx0 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.com (mout.gmx.com [74.208.4.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C71A1A92EB for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b5c5.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.181.197]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmxus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKZ9N-1YbzfB2lM7-001zCL; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:34 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F73117.9050608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:52:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1EC282FE-E813-408A-B666-5EE781A35A8A@gmx.com>
References: <20150304161442.9624.98525.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F73117.9050608@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:hQ/FiDTJ4ml02JruIrZHElexj2teRKuL/r1+biEUtwpiVS1l7r+ Q+jDVLfbfJsu8UsI8oH2WFI3komVdHKtU0JVrA001BMOkc+1XMvIBwrLf7MxuVo1qkcQJ2b UtvPw0gAtf0JzhZ4h8i5+xkjXqZDc7nGpoVUGfXgCsrTyENx9IedZT7i8gl0nxRTkc0HBIC EnnZELufNK4vp9jk6DheA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/jlO4vC4W6TwdErLtf4XKiXL59t4>
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:52:39 -0000

Hi Jouni,

Thanks for making the update.

One case that is possible that isn’t currently covered in section 7.3 is where the client requests a specific PvD(s) and the RSOO also appends a request for a different PvD(s) on behalf of that client. If the requested PVD-IDs are different between the client and the relay, how does the server respond?  i.e. does one take precedence over the other? do they get combined? Are specific preferred to general requests (or vice-versa)? etc.?

My suggestion is to add text to make this as policy configurable on the server.

There’s also a question here about what the client’s behaviour should be if it has requested a specific set of PVDs, but the response contains configuration for PVD-IDs that it hasn’t requested. Again, I would suggest it’s client configurable.

Cheers,
Ian

> On 04 Mar 2015, at 17:21, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Some minor updates and adding text about the relay agent behavior based on the comments we received. More specifically we discuss how the RSOO could be used in the context of PVDs and DHCPv6.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 3/4/2015, 8:14 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org kirjoitti:
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>         Title           : Support for multiple provisioning domains in DHCPv6
>>         Authors         : Suresh Krishnan
>>                           Jouni Korhonen
>>                           Shwetha Bhandari
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support-01.txt
>> 	Pages           : 10
>> 	Date            : 2015-03-04
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    The MIF working group is producing a solution to solve the issues
>>    that are associated with nodes that can be attached to multiple
>>    networks.  One part of the solution requires associating
>>    configuration information with provisioning domains.  This document
>>    details how configuration information provided through DHCPv6 can be
>>    associated with provisioning domains.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support/
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support-01
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support-01
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif