Re: [shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-00

Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 13:20 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ZQBziInPpr7p4NeFhl/UfnOwtG9war88Gl6zl34hHH+iiAOkzjxMJ32MH+fNPP4p4V wuWonhhKy/hwSx1u4QRP5jKonbhE6GVThwGK9EWit9FDo18Cm8v6Fq+CJ0JWnVvzYbly wakreknX2ldQKIHC9PyE+Qd708DK9eArqNOik=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27E89F0EEF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <1d38a3350902250437v3ad37690sc5d2dca7f78dddd4@mail.gmail.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27E89F0EEF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:20:55 +0800
Message-ID: <1d38a3350902260520u6428447dyc0bc44213772ee42@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2dc40e6b4dd0463d2388c
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-00
Precedence: list

Hi, Teemu

It looks workable, but need to change a lot of thing.
thanks.

-Hui

2009/2/25 <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>

>  Hi,
>
> 1) It should be described in 6.2 Server behaviour:
> --
>
>    If OPTION-IPv4-PRA is not present in DHCPDISCOVER, the server SHOULD
>
>    allocate full unrestricted public or private [RFC1918] IPv4 address
>
>    to the client, if available, by generating a DHCPOFFER as described
>
>    in [RFC2131].
> --
> and forward.
>
> So essentially the same DHCP server is allocating both full and port
> restricted IPv4 addresses, depending on host's support.
>
> 2) Excellent question. The lease time will have to be per port set instead
> of per IPv4 address as currently.
> - For a client this does not make any difference when compared to full IPv4
> address (client has to renew the address and when the lease ends, the IPv4
> address expires whatever was the size of allocated port set)
> - For the DHCP server this is clearly more complex, though. The DHCP
> server has to follow lease times per allocated port set. So if the server
> splits an IPv4 address into 10 sets, it has to have lease time follow-up for
> all those 10 sets. The clients will be varyingly renewing the port set they
> were allocated, and also individual port sets may be released/expired
> individually.
>
> For me it looks the DHCP server needs two tables: one for managing full
> IPv4 addresses, and one for managing port-restricted IPv4 addresses. Maybe
> those could be combined as well if the full IPv4 address is just considered
> a port-restricted IPv4 address with single 64K port allocation. I.e.
> something like:
> { 10.0.0.1 - port set FULL }
> { 10.0.0.2 - port set partial-A }
> { 10.0.0.2 - port set partial-B }
>
> I hope I find time to digg deeper into this before next IETF, but let's
> see. Anyhow, I believe the actual impact to lease time management on the
> server side depends on individual implementations.
>
> I hope I answered your questions.
>
> Best regards,
>
>     Teemu
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *ext Hui Deng
> *Sent:* 25 February, 2009 14:38
> *To:* shara@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-00
>
>   Hello, Authors.
>
> I read through the document
> 1) when some clients support option-pra, but others don't, will server
> behavior section
> describe this scenario?
>
> 2) how to handle lease life time of dhcp address
>
> thanks
>
> -Hui
>
>

[shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddrassign… Hui Deng
Re: [shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddras… teemu.savolainen
Re: [shara] comments about draft-bajko-pripaddras… Hui Deng