headers
Barr Hibbs | 6 Jan 2006 00:43

RE: draft-forte-dhc-passive-dad-00.txt - client ID support


sorry to have taken so long to reply to you, Andrea....

comments are in-line....

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea G Forte
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:00
>
> >>[Andrea]
> >>We know exactly from which Relay Agent/network
> >>segment the request came from (or where a rogue
> >>user is located). Usually the DHCP server looks
> >>at the 'giaddr' field to tell from which Relay
> >>Agent the request is coming from.  The 'giaddr'
> >>field contains the IP address of the Relay Agent
> >>nearest to the *client* requesting the IP address.
> >>
> >>>From RFC 3046:
> >>" [...] the relay agent SHALL forward any
> >>received DHCP packet with a valid non-zero giaddr
> >>WITHOUT adding any relay agent options.  Per RFC
> >>2131, it shall also NOT modify the giaddr value."
> >>
> >>Also, I do not see why the AUC can't just send
> >>the information directly to the DHCP server
> >>without involving any Relay Agent.
> >>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
CTO YAN Renxiang | 6 Jan 2006 07:16
Picon

Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?

Hi, all,

Can IA_PD and IA_NA options be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?
It seems some Prefix delegation do not support such feature. 
Which RFC define or recommend it? Why?

RGs,
-Renxiang
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Francis Dupont | 6 Jan 2006 09:35

Re: Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Can IA_PD and IA_NA options be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?

=> I can't see any reasons this may not be supported.

   It seems some Prefix delegation do not support such feature. 

=> you mean some implementations? IMHO there are some limited
(i.e., very lazy :-) implementations which don't support multiple IAs
but this is far from to be the rule.

   Which RFC define or recommend it? Why?

=> RFC 3315 which defines IAs. As there should be at least one IA per
used type (NA/TA/PD) and per client interface, and IAs are identified
by IAIDs, this suggests multiple IAs are common...

Regards

Francis.Dupont <at> point6.net

PS: TAHI DHCPv6 tests have a multiple IA configuration flag (I remember
because this flag is not documented so I'd to find what it is :-).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
CTO YAN Renxiang | 9 Jan 2006 07:11
Picon

re: Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?


In your previous mail you wrote:

> 
>    Can IA_PD and IA_NA options be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?
> 
> => I can't see any reasons this may not be supported.
> 
>    It seems some Prefix delegation do not support such feature. 
> 
> => you mean some implementations? IMHO there are some limited
> (i.e., very lazy :-) implementations which don't support multiple IAs
> but this is far from to be the rule.

DHCP-0.10 (from sourceforge.net), which is based on KAME's DHCP implementation,
support only IA_PD or IA_NA. 

I try to allocate an IPv6 address for CPE, and an IPv6 prefix for the home network during
CPE's interaction with DHCP server, but I failed when use DHCP-0.10 as an
experimental test. 

I will check to see if other implementations have similar problem.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hideshi Enokihara | 10 Jan 2006 05:42

Release-0.3 TAHI DHCPv6 conformance test


Hi all,

The TAHI project release DHCPv6 conformance test tool version 0.3.

Please see the following URL.

 http://www.tahi.org/dhcpv6/

If you are interested in this test tool,
I recommend that you subscribe to following Mailing list.

 dhcptest <at> tahi.org

And please give your comments/questions about the test tool
and the specification to this Mailing list.

Best regards,

--

-- 
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ralph Droms | 10 Jan 2006 05:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: [Geopriv] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-08.txt

Henning - will you please publish a revised draft with that new text for
review?  Thanks...

- Ralph

On 12/30/05 4:42 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs <at> cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> John,
> 
> my mistake, as I had asked for a declaration of consensus, but then never
> followed up when the thread died. Here's my proposed text:
> 
> Therefore, location information SHOULD NOT be sent from a
> DHCP client to a DHCP server.  If a client decides to send location
> information to the server, it is implicitly granting that server
> unlimited retention and distribution permissions.
> 
> --- EOT ---
> 
> To avoid another deadlock, I will insert this text at the end of the
> paragraph in the introduction (replacing the MUST NOT) unless somebody
> objects or suggests better text.
> 
> Henning
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Schnizlein
> To: DHCP discussion list
> Cc: Henning Schulzrinne
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andrea G. Forte | 10 Jan 2006 20:35

Re: draft-forte-dhc-passive-dad-00.txt - client ID support

Barr Hibbs wrote:

>sorry to have taken so long to reply to you, Andrea....
>
>comments are in-line....
>
>--Barr
>  
>
Gald to see you are back Barr. Hope you had a good Xmas and new year.
As usual, comments are inline.

-Andrea

>>>>[Andrea]
>>>>We know exactly from which Relay Agent/network
>>>>segment the request came from (or where a rogue
>>>>user is located). Usually the DHCP server looks
>>>>at the 'giaddr' field to tell from which Relay
>>>>Agent the request is coming from.  The 'giaddr'
>>>>field contains the IP address of the Relay Agent
>>>>nearest to the *client* requesting the IP address.
>>>>
>>>>>From RFC 3046:
>>>>" [...] the relay agent SHALL forward any
>>>>received DHCP packet with a valid non-zero giaddr
>>>>WITHOUT adding any relay agent options.  Per RFC
>>>>2131, it shall also NOT modify the giaddr value."
>>>>
>>>>Also, I do not see why the AUC can't just send
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Barr Hibbs | 11 Jan 2006 19:51

RE: draft-forte-dhc-passive-dad-00.txt - client ID support


Andrea--

this is the most stimulating tech exchange I've had in a
while:  it's forcing me to consider a number of different
issues that we've let slide because no one has a great
proposal for how to simply administer the identification and
authentication of DHCP servers, relay agents, and clients.

I've trimmed the original message text a bit to keep this
from growing totally out of hand.

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea G. Forte
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:36
>
*Snip!*
>
> >[Barr]
> >...I really am biased against adding another server to be
> >administered, especially another physical server (network
> >host.)  Obviously, combining the functions in another,
> >existing device on the network still requires
> >administration, but as you've noted below, the
> functionality does work pretty well for you in a relay
> >agent.
> >
> [Andrea]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bernie Volz (volz | 14 Jan 2006 15:23
Picon
Favicon

RE: re: Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one DHCPv6session?

The Cisco Network Registrar (6.2) DHCP server does allow you to do this.
You can request both stateful addresses and delegated prefixes in a
single request.

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of CTO YAN Renxiang
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:12 AM
> To: Francis.Dupont <at> point6.net
> Cc: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] re: Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one 
> DHCPv6session? 
> 
>  
> In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
> > 
> >    Can IA_PD and IA_NA options be transfered in one DHCPv6 session?
> > 
> > => I can't see any reasons this may not be supported.
> > 
> >    It seems some Prefix delegation do not support such feature. 
> > 
> > => you mean some implementations? IMHO there are some limited
> > (i.e., very lazy :-) implementations which don't support 
> multiple IAs
> > but this is far from to be the rule.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ted Lemon | 15 Jan 2006 19:50
Gravatar

Re: re: Can IA_PD and IA_NA be transfered in one DHCPv6session?

On Saturday 14 January 2006 07:23, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> The Cisco Network Registrar (6.2) DHCP server does allow you to do this.
> You can request both stateful addresses and delegated prefixes in a
> single request.

Yup, that makes sense to me too.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane