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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 3302711E808E for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 q0rGyYMqZUia for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1892611E808D for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p8DHQSq2005319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:26:28 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8DHQSQr003570; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:26:28 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.183]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p8DHQNsO006108; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:26:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:26:23 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; 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> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@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 17:24:24 -0000

Le 13/09/2011 18:58, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> It is good that lifetime of ND and of DHCP are coherent when used
>> on default route.
>
> Could you restate your point more explicitly? I find that I could
> interpret your response to mean either that you think that the major
>  extension to DHCP is required, or that it is not.

Allow me explain myself.

I am not sure what is meant by a major extension to DHCP.  Generally
speaking I oppose major rehauling of such vast software as DHCP
benefitting such huge installed base.

But I do believe a different option type is needed to communicate the
default route (different than the option type used in general for route
option for DHCP).

In the particular case of default route being communicated by DHCP (not
generally any routes communicated by DHCP) I believe that DHCP should
use a lifetime for default route in a way that is coherent with how ND
communicates that default route.

The lifetime fields that DHCP typically communicates are of different
length than the lifetime field used by ND about default router (32bit vs
16bit if I am not mistaken).

If that implies a major rehaul to DHCP implementation of timing in
general then I would oppose suggesting such a change.

If that implies that DHCP implementation does not change its way of
managing its 32bit timing for usual DHCP matters, but just stores 16bit
Default Route lifetime values in a conf file, and communicates these
fields to Client in a DHCP Message, then I would agree with it.

If that implies that ND should be modified such at the expiration of the
Default Router lifetime it fires a RS _and_ (optionally) a DHCP Request
ORO 64 asking anew the Default Router, then I would not oppose it either.

Does this explanation add to clarity of my initially short phrase?

Alex