Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Fri, 23 March 2012 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@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 D062221E8045 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.081
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4h86Vx6Us7bO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0F221E8042 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=8485; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332474931; x=1333684531; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=TCQQy09Fif/9o0FbKZvWtAtqvlEOBMTtWr2/YCIlnnw=; b=Qmy1PMuYITGUSitZLo/Xct0h8v2tEnWdvKNugin0aAj6IKZtfZlX4eLm V4VjoH1cOl/kb5YgxmMEBGKV8VlI+odpuzjT6O3vfgozCQ2QpsTSMDsAn l5wv+xqTPJzsS5SSO2ZWW6YMAVxicxcOAWaUwrOx623zFeAV+T7FvD+Gf A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAFAKfya0+tJXG//2dsb2JhbABEgkasFAGIcIEHggkBAQEEEgEJEQNJDAQCAQgOAwQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHaAuYf58QkCBjBIgjM5tJgWiDBQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,633,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="68767619"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2012 03:55:30 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2N3tU71024934; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:55:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:55:30 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD08A8.C9C26D30"
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:55:11 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30444AF35@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB8E439B.5FCA%c.grundemann@cablelabs.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC
Thread-Index: Ac0G2RxKlB6clMQXR960EG0tX6YgZABzOttA
References: <702415E0-2849-4AB9-BA8E-BD312A7EE8EE@employees.org> <CB8E439B.5FCA%c.grundemann@cablelabs.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Chris Grundemann <C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2012 03:55:30.0047 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA0510F0:01CD08A8]
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ronald Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:55:32 -0000

Chris,

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:36 PM
To: Ole Trøan; Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Ronald Bonica
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

 

 

>Yes, and the O flag is the "Other configuration" flag. PD is certainly

>other DHCPv6 configuration information. In fact, RFC 4861 is quite clear

>on this point, it states: "If neither M nor O flags are set, this

>indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6." (emphasis on 'NO

>information')

 

Not quite.  The O flag is to obtain information using stateless DHCPv6 - see http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3736.txt.

PD acquisition is a stateful DHCPv6 procedure or RFC 3633 has to also clarify if PD acquisition is supported via both stateful and stateless DHCPv6.  We have discussed such a clarification with Ralph Droms and Ole in the past - don't remember the outcome.  Further, a DHCPv6 client includes the IA_NA and the IA_PD option in the DHCPv6 SOLICIT.  IA_NA IA_Address acquisition is a stateful DHCPv6 operation and now if PD acquisition is a stateless operation, what if the DHCPv6 server the SOLICIT is going to is only stateless (and if rfc3633 supports stateless dhcpv6 operation?). The IA_NA is not obtained from such a server.   I hope it's clear now the kind of DHCPv6 client and server issues one has.  In the kind of network I develop products for, I so do prefer that 120,000 DHCPv6 clients on my router relay agent do issue SOLICIT with both IA_NA and the IA_PD so that I save upstream bandwidth or alleviate congestion.  The DHCPv6 server in our deployment also better support stateful and stateless services in one server.  

 

I keep hearing of new corner cases in the DHC WG related to DHCPv6 server for the PD being separate from the server that allocates IA_NA's.  It's fine to work out such corner cases, but a gentle reminder that the broadband networks, IMHO, need consolidated options in a DHCPv6 SOLICIT.

 

Hemant