IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 09 December 2019 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 C64B01208BB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 m6Mk0ME6vHkA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F4012084C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id x13so5934203plr.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 07:21:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=U7bUaKdZvrWJIGyy9Qts5rIbST2j48qWG+8oAiI5U3g=; b=UyzztbFo1RqDsqqREH6xFoOSjKGkWxWiFKRIWtE4YjU4tfmIpVvC4pown8h0MXt59a 75APRTb48/x5Yto1sI7GT81K+LRs4KdM912d0lWeyehyH5gNOfmddh1NXnT0SdmlEQmg ePlQy+FpMzIgmr10C5/eiKetDkAUZP2RA++qc7pH1of6lpr+TTd229NlF+8v09+Uqcg/ OSlAlvNjB5SsAzDvnUcGBr8tSZwgXqL1g93pVxK6yJyKMeg8LTfEYvLfipHy8DigoqY+ OxSL8ywsw6+j+3qA1ApamshsL0VxqIePf4df+jHnUes7+9XE4ulpszmiT85h5i0JyC4u ZSQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=U7bUaKdZvrWJIGyy9Qts5rIbST2j48qWG+8oAiI5U3g=; b=t5JkHlKiJx1dDJVtDk5ZTy/jFb+mRv2w2UtTw/U1b+1d8X9qEtZNmD0GVB6RRN0pzU WqPyYGZry8Krhmni4TYlS4S1ZAlo0sbYRr5U4mtSyCUoU8AGeGWVhinT4vQgElEhjnDk BlbvYZTZfmbyYU/X4OMFTEK8md5UHxqnBQNVeuT3oW5Z7IW9OZLiP6ZiEZ29YuFrZfjs E6u8SnTIOTLY6HQMvcFgwrAs1ALn1Q45BHbHAag4+C2lnXhR027pYIhZsl6dCDe6EKeO ut+orXsqczj5tOkPOFq8PpKoiAXSCNGrnYiyetMnvGNEreGjF47JCWmjD0BM5+NoM8wX FhFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrL3QXk09Nw5dnbUdhnOq1uAPoNUODNeAP0eUHPs3ayhmoJA5n pWM095Kbm47WtrVcP2yQZR9NuZ18Fug=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxvhfFtHr57YuMN4dsKCRjUeAx/pL4lMO4VwtqpaHj/CEQWWGtpIRg30OFPmRg5mKqg4SnhBg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bd10:: with SMTP id y16mr17113831pjr.108.1575904883072; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 07:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from encantada.scv.apple.com ([17.192.138.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l66sm25482302pga.30.2019.12.09.07.21.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2019 07:21:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <85E7ECA2-3538-48D7-99CB-7E978E7C0F03@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E80ABA7E-033B-4FD8-9E9F-B01DCEDB627A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3600\))
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 07:21:21 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1655AE1A-EF2E-4720-BFBE-FA512CC4D240@cisco.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <F5AAD5B7-22BD-4474-9A1E-1A97AFFE47FC@cisco.com> <1655AE1A-EF2E-4720-BFBE-FA512CC4D240@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3600)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Gl8hXpyLQ8fx4OGMA7SLme3PEjs>
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 15:21:25 -0000

On Dec 9, 2019, at 7:19 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> Perhaps as a middle ground, draft could allow a server to return 0.0.0.0 as “assigned” address and then client MUST NOT send a DHCPREQUEST.
> But I do not see this as being a requirement.

This isn’t a middle ground.  This is (at best) meaningless behavior: a hack.   Worse, it could actually cause problems with middleboxes because they might try to treat 0.0.0.0 as a real address.   Why are you doing the hack?   What is the problem you are trying to prevent by doing the hack?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email