IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 14:39 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 E1182120013 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:39:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 CzOAcV8Jc6eJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com (mail-pf1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) (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 6F8F3120019 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id y206so1731192pfb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:39:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=FjCoC9s2ONRttEaQ/vMssvwKAiDaTOBwfKGao+fePew=; b=lA/No6AzpWH55C+Fh5l8gqYv21BgpjdmtBCTXJ1DGuMObA1v0rRYp1JYHnJeJNYq+R neq9FVIEAH6B2w2bn3G4mVh+ulSk9qAQZtGwwRWOZPUdmJeuxBb+D1+2bcqtYQTnFdgW AM1tU/S0KXVrFj0uPycSrduFQXg3iLs4nlEzB8e0oUCKH+ALlQZVHYoOniMpfxhU6Jgr XfB5k7UbxWLpKgbPPj77IKtg4C+zTf4zOf0L7AHbrY1Bq2Y5jS45wY2YRP0UsYlh5wg1 x5NeQ7atJmSTw3ORMiC0/FmNT4wssGxfTeIk0YObkYh0rKE89rVfIdNIaFstko2I5Yza Nwtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=FjCoC9s2ONRttEaQ/vMssvwKAiDaTOBwfKGao+fePew=; b=Jo1467HOvBAArOe3MQzj+ypDWvbeEtz1CTx+qKuh4mFiH+yVrOfMnm67afk5Z9iLR9 SsDnjDpeLOl3nWrS01DSNr+IXOkxTd0ZviSvBTmi4jkEg2AiXofIX73Ujc/ZANSXX12N F4GN2xdEY3nrNvW484jel8sZlBR7ai9SpF9ylZbuDQMY6wxlmJSHYq3R/qz32lhZt8et B2VwjkeZhHDIoXPs111+TZBxL2dGHP1hZPjs2ViZAk9MJUw7qDsbV3O5Og/GIXiKi6TO T0ISbYiVLGPLy8D0qB4jIbDoAPn4qFmTJer0WqhLRnP4vU21VrpqyqPmuiNKRM9WNJNO elqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVU9bPEDGy5z05xNO9vhzUd9Q7uYe9Kdcycr0smgtDyJ+X5OU1x KeSyQ8ec0CnKEHgfbvl8IGxrdA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyc4uYE7llg0EaVsPLwxv1Om5WPO6KBRAnVDkZfLR3nM9iIH4ILcchXVYeVrlvG5OlQkJgxkg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:cf09:: with SMTP id j9mr9417376pgg.393.1575556760714; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.1.77] (ip-64-134-236-149.public.wayport.net. [64.134.236.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e11sm4049pjj.26.2019.12.05.06.39.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:39:18 -0800
Message-Id: <7EC52F0F-DBB8-4339-89EE-5123DFAE415E@fugue.com>
References: <a6035aba-cab5-c779-c977-8b1a995eccfd@marples.name>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-link-dhc-v6only@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <a6035aba-cab5-c779-c977-8b1a995eccfd@marples.name>
To: Roy Marples <roy=40marples.name@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17E177)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jvBGqwDEbKbd6slWwt6uCvbLmaw>
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 14:39:24 -0000

On Dec 4, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Roy Marples <roy=40marples.name@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> So in simple terms.
> The server offers some information.
> Given this information (in current DHCP semantics) we can RENEW (T1) or REBIND (T2).
> If the client does not request the offer (hey! I see this new fangled option here that says NO DHCP) the client can still accept the T2 timer at the very least.
> 
> Think of the analogus RFC 7083 - Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT. This RFC goes out of its way not to add new timers.

There is a reason why DHCP includes a parameter request list option.  If the client doesn’t ask for this newfangled option, it shouldn’t see it.  And so we can know for sure that the client supports this capability, because it asked for it.

Is there any reason why we /wouldn’t/ want to do this?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email