IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> Thu, 05 December 2019 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <roy@marples.name>
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 CDBB9120111 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:16:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=marples.name
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 aPZI4-GBRc67 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay2.marples.name (relay2.marples.name [77.68.23.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9C71208F2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.marples.name (cpc115040-bour7-2-0-cust370.15-1.cable.virginm.net [81.108.15.115]) by relay2.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A4A6797 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:16:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.73.1.30] (unknown [10.73.1.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 405061CD619; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:15:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marples.name; s=mail; t=1575508520; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DT7KzOBJsFo5zVQr5RyCXKil1+71//Fwzz5G6ukDz7U=; b=e/oF3qHruY4860Skm/UQlSt9A2bPKic5THFQPpM06n1t3NIMXubJm2rm0mtJ/l5y8O99d2 TenXvht3deuzMMnqnjMnHK0V46LeFpiXEuZz96T2AXCPzJDmTJQ3PNqUB3BQif1d5xLW1T Hp4R/lxZHQ/hHRqWx9RShJuTxYmAgPg=
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-link-dhc-v6only@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <CAFU7BAQp2-4EwntFj6Nx+be54-fi+gnQmRgT6yS22p=vYugpzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1L_hdRMiGApa7VKuZ0_f5q1NJ-5sHMeg-dtTWa=Tq6bQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAS9iMBWkdQF_hwK7squvG9A5f38miS=sWLNns=ZxK4GCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>
Message-ID: <fb58252f-3666-4a87-d786-e9dc94357d31@marples.name>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:16:14 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAS9iMBWkdQF_hwK7squvG9A5f38miS=sWLNns=ZxK4GCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PCH48pC0ZovzkCgmVjySRZTWWMQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] 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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:16:20 -0000

On 05/12/2019 01:02, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
>> Also, is there any reason that 0.0.0.0 shouldn't be the address retunded by a server "if the IPv6-only Preferred option is present in the Parameter Request List received from the client and the corresponding DHCP pool is explicitly configured as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment" as discussed in Section 3.3?
> 
> We discussed that but some concerns were raised - allegedly it might
> make some DHCP-snooping switches very unhappy.

I quickly skimmed RFC2131 and nothing is mentioned about any assigned 
address being unspecified or otherwise invalid.

So as I see it, what the client should do is Unspecified Behaviour.
We could treat it as any other standard and define it.

It's not as if current implementations don't barf on current RFC's .....

Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email