Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 09 December 2019 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40CB12004E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:32:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=YqPOYB6H; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=KRSJ/WcZ
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 zlUC4pn1ERoR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B2912000F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:32:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8277; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1575901924; x=1577111524; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=t4e9jjlSomjr2SblOIXKFiTFIE+az7ETvk0Clcm1Ohs=; b=YqPOYB6H5XSyexlh5PIwznioYtvcjxywJ0Ij7aLIhCOsjZJI4bISEPDO vkBqeURBsKd0ahRwqEbuetCz+g8B8YrJ84Bh+jM0UrnWmeRsNIZ87HwFb OmG2uOzDsuESdsMTA8ZkXP7aLxtR3nP8XI3SYscWvDA4Zc7UAIrqO1at7 A=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:OEWSJxX9HM/NHuREhL984NEHDs7V8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANiJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdEwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/cSs+DuxJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANAgAbWu5d/5ldJa1kHQEBAQkBEQUFAYFtBQELAYFKUAWBRCAECyqEAoNGA4sCgjqTSIRiglIDVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhEACF4ICJDcGDgIDDQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTcMhVMCAQMSER0BATcBDwIBCA40AgICMCUCBA4FGweDAIF6TQMuAQKhBwKBOIhhdYEygn4BAQWCSoJJGIIXCYE2AYwXGoIAgTgMFIJMPoQzgyYygiyQJ4VQmGYKgi6VZhuaMqh1AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFoI4FYcBVlAYJBUBEUjGaDc4pTdIEojWkBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,296,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="379342908"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Dec 2019 14:32:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xB9EW2uL022916 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:32:02 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 08:32:02 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 09:32:00 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 08:32:00 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=WzKJmJ86Bk3JUtFlwEIZ0J24ucQnLaUkMnZO36ZjW0/nnMh69HF8jsykMaCbCpFdMA1EcBTEZsv8WQl1Ftw7JwLxJV4kSIZ9+Jn5RWz4+9e405zXf/AMdQCtvFiIZEz3U1tkuDOwizImjlbuVxb2Ba5UOjkaOp94flIxtbvSBmohhB38gL3lObPtVLtf4yqJCIJ3GIvrsk6etQgn4KkL8MSukgLs0rPP3WpoPtBdHbjoutOF7fO52M4OetSAK2yxvbjyePyyG6iEw4qNRPUjd2BEtIJwaUXgt2Ck/fLgmnmlY8kKnZVReCVX0+MeUJk759jkyt9+cZNKeyC091EM1A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=t4e9jjlSomjr2SblOIXKFiTFIE+az7ETvk0Clcm1Ohs=; b=jJAXOdoITkrpnrToFDhV8kZeALaxEkP7cpQjXo7YAqCVr8XGh+u6Y2BR+budNwFj0mIYG3YHIlhbVURP7MZuesDEK98/5FMZFLWk0LfrWaTautpBCrRKIlBMRceqyomiZcSJip6r+8/CWYgumJIwGEf53OeuGMBqAQrPkT6i1UrVoz/TEovPOJP42CVZEWthF/aS3Ofr99F2Vvzmgzpcy46ByslhvVfYeKNAh/SSv5Mop3C8s4hx/SnWtrzPNZJ9X4Z7E2lXAKMrVrD+KpzjIzot1nmyKCU5dVhtvhioF4XFcDeocKIaLnv0V0eSr2m9z8KshqtcPWOi6rU9XLM6Jw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=t4e9jjlSomjr2SblOIXKFiTFIE+az7ETvk0Clcm1Ohs=; b=KRSJ/WcZkz9aZQzRVbyImfAbJWpOPheClqf1Y2jO9DNANzkjxieoBRZSFzAsXB2EhQ/v/ey/TjgYKa8Omfs3g4QEPxSis6kqthAvF4qk0p+ohNIpZeISAAdrsKwNLne/R2c2vifN772C9Hs3gwPNMeyrixKoZDgvZEEpGNTQSP8=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.126.158) by DM6PR11MB3946.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.127.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.17; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:31:58 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4194:dade:1d47:2678]) by DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4194:dade:1d47:2678%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.018; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:31:58 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
Thread-Index: AQHVrph2epYC8FtIKky3loNP84z23aex1NRpgAAEqwCAAAQjEA==
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 14:31:58 +0000
Message-ID: <F5AAD5B7-22BD-4474-9A1E-1A97AFFE47FC@cisco.com>
References: <9102C9A8-DA3A-4460-88AD-13E24561B901@cisco.com>, <CDC50564-D289-4E73-9924-4F00E93F9C7C@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDC50564-D289-4E73-9924-4F00E93F9C7C@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=volz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2600:1000:b040:e741:54d3:c47d:a977:83e9]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8ac5621c-abdf-415a-8c22-08d77cb48c56
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3946:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB39460854D053479D8DFDBDE9CF580@DM6PR11MB3946.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 02462830BE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(86362001)(33656002)(91956017)(54906003)(186003)(478600001)(2616005)(6506007)(53546011)(5660300002)(8936002)(71190400001)(76116006)(81156014)(71200400001)(4326008)(8676002)(81166006)(229853002)(6512007)(2906002)(66446008)(66946007)(6916009)(36756003)(6486002)(64756008)(66476007)(66556008)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB3946; H:DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: IHifWQqIKXzSil4RnDy7qiw7awtiQ/M6mwMB7NJwKXwFsbomt6/jmzeuyGflBDSx1hbDXomN7PCBekMSSrqszmt0PY3JDUdqax0Uwfj78b3tgy5Kw3Shk7bucOIeDQioYVdv0zoQUiDsjNdAZtUiJYU4oIh4jCnUyzdpL/rTXlsflicJKrlYy6/1k0Tew7gc14Erjyl3Jf9sN47PHPO2ZXufi49z4EDysZGE3s7U8mJbUcKjzxNcKxMV62zA1uyRUQToOcWKm4Gw3krzn/i9K83eonkUKJ67x1LwIUcaLy1tlnDgvOtuDhp2PflMhSA2463aYdfOnHrLR7NrMdVfQO5zlxbDhrGS6r0O+pU8Ik81EvtWW08FnXNVI5oTE1x0HCPnD/RK+2PBph9lTr/eT2SqHZOZLOZ339uQ0F6L2+dnO1lLgYsExdwgwdp4V2Ch
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5AAD5B722BD44749A1E1A97AFFE47FCciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8ac5621c-abdf-415a-8c22-08d77cb48c56
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Dec 2019 14:31:58.5604 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: d8zUu7RVB3mKeWmcrgFmuCqvtp6ttQBn4YvViJATQFActkFvlfYmqGG8w4F0i0+Z
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3946
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.20, xch-aln-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/53gYc-JmuE6Mv_3ooUy7vk44zIc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Dec 2019 14:32:07 -0000

No, I am strongly arguing for no change.

Again, the things I suggested are optimizations if you feel there is a need to reduce the impact if lots of clients come online at same time. You don’t have to do any of these things.

If a server commits lease to disk with full lease time on an offer, yes you have to change that. Rfc 2131 already states that this is appropriate to do (not commit, use short time to hold lease).

Sure, we can document that as something that is a consideration if you have lots of clients and not much address space.

Sending 0 address is bad:
- might impact middleboxes
- has issues if option has been hijacked for other purposes and is in prl
- doesn’t allow client to continue with lease if it changes its configuration between discover & offer

And even if addresses all used, retransmissions will allow client to eventually proceed.

- Bernie

On Dec 9, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:


On Dec 9, 2019, at 06:00, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

We already don’t commit to disk per rfc2131 and use a short, tuneable time-out. So, again, we are all set without server changes.

Does rfc2131 actually say that?

You can also classify these devices into a separate client class to reduce timeout for them (such as to a few seconds).


That’s a special server change.

Again, I see no need for special server changes.

If a server doesn’t provide for these mechanics, the server should. But this is configuration issue, not protocol issue.

So servers other than yours should be the ones that have to change?  :)

The reason I think this merits a change is that we actually want different behavior. The change is trivial.

You aren’t actually arguing for no change: you are arguing for a change that is minimally inconvenient assuming a certain existing implementation.

That is a good short term move, but this is a long term solution. So I’m arguing to do it right.

One way to resolve this impasse would be to specify it do it would work with your minimal change, but also allow the server to send no address in the offer. That way you can implement the full change at your leisure, but we still get a good long term outcome.