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

["Guang Yao" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Eric

 

I realize something is omitted:

 

"Section  6.4.2.2, paragrap 2.1: 

  the SAVI device MUST send a LEASEQUERY [RFC5007]"

 

This procedure is not in the data snooping process. I propose revising these
words to:

 

"the SAVI device MUST send a LEASEQUERY. In case the SAVI device is not
capable of performing the DHCP leasequery process, a DHCP_DEFAULT_LEASE
should be set on the entry."

 

The DHCP_DEFAULT_LEASE can be set based on the purpose of the operator. If
zero is set, the entry will be deleted. 

 

Is this OK?

 

Best regards,

Guang

 

 

From: Guang Yao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:20 AM
To: 'Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe)'; 'Jean-Michel Combes'; 'SAVI Mailing
List'
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Ted Lemon'
Subject: RE: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

 

Hi, Eric

 

Thank you very much for the comments!

 

1. 

For the first one, considering the whole "data snooping process" is actually
a "conditional should"(s7.1), the DHCP lease query process is actually no
more than a "conditional  should". The "MUST" just specifies if the data
snooping process is to be implemented, the lease query process will be a
MUST.

Besides, it seems there is no good alternative method to set up bindings
without DHCP lease query; however, if DHCP lease query cannot be performed,
the whole data snooping process is meaningless. Thus, we choose "MUST" on
DHCP lease query process.

 

2.

We fully accept the second comment and will revise the doc accordingly.

 

Best regards,

Guang

 

From: Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:09 PM
To: Jean-Michel Combes; SAVI Mailing List
Cc: <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Ted Lemon
Subject: Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

 

Hi,

In general, the document looks good. I spot a few substantial issues listed
below:

 

1) There seem to be a requirement in several places of the document (see
below) to send LEASEQUERY to the DHCP server.  That is certainly useful to
do so, but switches are sometimes pure layer-2 switches, and don't implement
a DHCP stack not they have a layer-3 address to source traffic from.

Even when the switches have a layer-3 leg,  setting then to reach out the
DHCP server is not a trivial operation, and not one which is typically done
on layer-2 access switches.

Whenever the LEASEQUERY is mandated,  I'd rather have it as a SHOULD, with
some alternate behavior (delete the entry for instance).

 

Section  6.4.2.2, paragrap 2.1: 

  the SAVI device MUST send a LEASEQUERY [RFC5007]

Section 7.5.2.1

  IPv4 address: Send a DHCPLEASEQUERY [RFC4388]

 IPv6 address: Send a LEASEQUERY [RFC5007]

 

2) Section 7.1 & 7.2

"To perform this process, the SAVI device MUST join the Solicited Node

   Multicast group of the source address of triggering IPv6 data packet

   whenever performing duplicate detection."

*	I don't think a layer-2 switch can and need to join the Solicited
Node  Multicast group of the source address. It does not have a layer-3
stack on top of every link it is bridging/switching. It has to snoop ND
traffic, like it snoops DHCP traffic. 

  Section 7.5.1.2

*	I wonder what would be the end-result if the switch send a DAD or
and ARP and the legitimate owner interpret it as "someone already has the
address" (always possible depending on its current state). That would
seriously break DAD or ACD (rfc5227). I think we need a way to distinguish
between the packets issued by the switch and normal DAD or ACD packets.
(some field in the header? But that would be a protocol change.).

Eric

 

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: mardi 8 avril 2014 12:15
To: SAVI Mailing List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: "<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >"
<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

 

Folks,

As it has been deeply modified since the last WGLC (version -06), this is a
new two weeks WGLC for the following document: "SAVI Solution for DHCP"
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22).

Please, don't hesitate to give your opinion (i.e., agreement/disagreement to
move forward the document, comments, etc.)!

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

JMC.