IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Conluding this question RE: DNS server selection and whether to support DHCPv4 or not

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Wed, 15 June 2011 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.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 113F59E8006 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VHOPb6UY-kxy for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4556B9E8004 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p5FHJ2UD021391; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:19:07 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:19:06 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:19:06 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-031.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:19:06 +0200
From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
To: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
Thread-Topic: [mif] Conluding this question RE: DNS server selection and whether to support DHCPv4 or not
Thread-Index: AQHMKqJLCV2XVgORTku+MAZo42HqU5S88ZwAgAGWLuD//+ZgAIAAPTmI
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:19:05 +0000
Message-ID: <BJ8nyz7q5yjg@65H3CQKM>
References: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696206FDC8@008-AM1MPN1-031.mgdnok.nokia.com> <BANLkTi=wRTNyC7hmqx46NSRwsEA6fknaWA@mail.gmail.com> <6E289438-9A9C-49DD-BE22-535F5493D3D8@nominum.com> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE443096962074B0C@008-AM1MPN1-031.mgdnok.nokia.com> <55AF032A-2918-4ECD-B50D-C65EF6189325@nominum.com> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696207579C@008-AM1MPN1-031.mgdnok.nokia.com>, <8D8BA88A-F079-4A64-A923-8B8FBA4CCD04@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D8BA88A-F079-4A64-A923-8B8FBA4CCD04@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2011 17:19:06.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[54FBAD10:01CC2B80]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Conluding this question RE: DNS server selection and whether to support DHCPv4 or not
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:19:11 -0000

Because with IPv4 multihoming is painful..

I'm not sure how count field for suffixes help.... Or does it hint receiver's parser to notice where to expect next preference field etc after multiple option instances have been concatenated? How the concatenation btw works? Receiver sums options up and creates one large with one code field, total length field, and the payloads are then just concatenated? And suffix count helps to find beginning of next instance?

Teemu

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ted Lemon
Sent:  15/06/2011, 18:40
To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-CTO/Tampere)
Cc: maxpassion@gmail.com; mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Conluding this question RE: DNS server selection and whether to support DHCPv4 or not

On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:14 AM, <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> wrote:
> Yes.. I understand feature parity is a nice thing, but a container option (or nested option) for DHCPv4 sounds complex.. So does feature parity justify this complexity, or would it be enough with DHCPv4 learn just one DNS server capable of serving certain namespaces?

It seems as though if the feature is useful in IPv6, it's also useful in IPv4.   I can't think of a reason why you'd care less about it in IPv4.

> Or do you have some idea how this option could be formatted nicely for DHCPv4?

I think if you just add a count field for the number of suffixes, it should work.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email