IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

"Guang Yao" <yaoguang@cernet.edu.cn> Tue, 22 April 2014 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <yaoguang@cernet.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827571A004A for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 PrQs2KY7QkKF for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cernet.edu.cn (sea.net.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491861A0051 for <savi@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AndrewYaoPC (unknown [166.111.132.217]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3C7FgOA6FVTw9QCAA--.130S2; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:56:48 +0800 (CST)
From: "Guang Yao" <yaoguang@cernet.edu.cn>
To: "'Ted Lemon'" <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <CAA7e52osoEKeo=EqGF2=PTUrnxC=+8c+GkvF1v4DBQYELYQ6_A@mail.gmail.com> <CF758A35.38C12%elevyabe@cisco.com> <000e01cf5d0a$4a279d40$de76d7c0$@cernet.edu.cn> <D0685C39-0755-4DBC-BED3-AF3684153ABC@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0685C39-0755-4DBC-BED3-AF3684153ABC@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:56:51 +0800
Message-ID: <000001cf5dde$e493d450$adbb7cf0$@cernet.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJ+SCgfdpNGCy/MpS4Q3KK7ONbjpgGWxBw8AcRlR48BlYz03pmXoxDw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3C7FgOA6FVTw9QCAA--.130S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7XF1DXrW3WF1xCrWfWw45ZFb_yoW8JrW3pa 98JF45Ka1DG3WrX3WDtryxXw1j9r95Ca9rGFn8Gry0yF15AF98AryIkrW0q3srWry8Xa15 Z3y29r1DA3sxurJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUgYb7Iv0xC_Zr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_ Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr 0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj 6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lF7 xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr40E4x8a64kEw24lc2xSY4AK67AK6r48MxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMI8I 3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxV WUAVWUtwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8I cVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87 Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZF pf9x07jIbyZUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: 51drw3xdqjquphuqv3oohg3hdfq/
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/savi/2_eWNu6XnHdRdK79siBGy7KHSNc
Cc: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp@tools.ietf.org, 'SAVI Mailing List' <savi@ietf.org>, 'Jean-Michel Combes' <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi/>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 03:57:12 -0000

Hi, Ted

Thank you very much for your comments! I agree with you. It's safe to assume
all the SAVI devices have layer-3 stack. But it seems Eric also concerns the
implementation of DHCP leasequery and NDP snooping.

On the MLD problem mentioned by Eric, I wonder should SAVI-DHCP be
consistent with RFC6620, or be different? 

Hi, Eric

On the DAD problem:

I read the doc again and find DAD NS will not be sent to the tentative node.
Whenever probe should be sent to the tentative node, we use plain NS instead
of DAD NS. Thus would it be OK?

We are looking forward to your further comments, thanks!

Best regards,
Guang

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:31 AM
To: Guang Yao
Cc: Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe); Jean-Michel Combes; SAVI Mailing List;
draft-ietf-savi-dhcp@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

Do we really think there are modern layer 2 devices that will implement
SAVI-DHCP that will not have IPv6 addresses?   This seems highly doubtful to
me-the devices that would only have layer two addresses would be unmanaged
switches.   I have a cheap managed switch, and it has an IPv4 address and a
web server in it.   I think this is a non-problem.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email