Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8741B30CF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:15:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 0Fq6jQ8d5994 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DC7B1B30E3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:14:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=995; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447704894; x=1448914494; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MJ1CbB+tj2L+J4jcyEcce5Qu2w3Vemxo8R30B6/J1Jg=; b=AFz6uo8opy/tNlK8LLvG/+309nbKgZFzvIpOY2hSkfJRMes3ZKKJayIq lb/AJgS+55YsHtF3hnoep7PSVBRZv2UO19ObJzvnG3AerAB9pyJlGl0si crCJO5gfStTYI0jd1NKF+aq7IghqAdH4OoFHgfpRr4tYK/pJGx4JH0cux o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAgDuN0pW/5xdJa1dgzuBQga+WgENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WWGEAKBRzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEOj8MBAIBCBEEAQEfCQcyFAkIAgQBDQU?= =?us-ascii?q?IiCa7GgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiLUok5AQSWSAGNH4FilniDcQEfA?= =?us-ascii?q?QFChARyAYQCgQcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,304,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="208807145"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Nov 2015 20:14:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAGKErPC001732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:14:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:14:52 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:14:52 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
Thread-Index: AQHRFohEbga31qC+rEetrILg3VHRBZ6LRgsAgAa8AYCAAnb/AIAIkUDwgAI3wAD//+CA4IAAWEgA//+utiA=
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:14:52 +0000
Message-ID: <71ad4618b68249fcbe2d5888c77580ca@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F391A7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr15C-uoxUw0kgWO-d=LmUK8qWGLS7vt+22W+k8xXtDY+g@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F393F1@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3941D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563811DF.9020603@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F394F7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563821EB.3040508@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F39A09@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <56392B6D.8030703@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A88F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A97F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAHDzDLBG8xZxUFsAuN-7WuruZcULF1QAS_ch=gD5rGQMZfskow@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3E8B0@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <831e60e2122547bc8bdf167e76f664c9@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4CE72@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e7bcbba7047f44aba6a355da51f3265b@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4D137@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4D137@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.78.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0tUfk34bszEKDjMwIdb9c13AEB4>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:15:01 -0000

Fred,

Ah, even I was thinking, maybe is addresses are allowed and bingo, you caught it - thanks for the clarifications.   Your use case looks good.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:05 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Mukom Akong T.
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]


Section 12.1 of RFC3633 says:

   "the requesting router MUST
   NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
   prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message
   from the delegating router."

and what I am suggesting agrees with this requirement. I am talking about assigning *addresses* (not prefixes or subnets), and the document does not say that an address cannot be assigned to the link through which the DHCP message was received.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com