Send dhcp-users mailing list submissions to
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dhcp-users-requ...@lists.isc.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
dhcp-users-ow...@lists.isc.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of dhcp-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition (Simon Hobson)
2. Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition (Simon Hobson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:42:15 +0000
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: "dhcp-users@lists.isc.org ISC DHCP" <dhcp-users@lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
Message-ID: <c72d66a0-3d3f-4fd8-82bf-1371c6620...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On 13 Feb 2017, at 21:26, "Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmud...@avaya.com> wrote:
> Anyone else that would benefit from a list of devices (their MAC addresses)
> with assigned IPv6 addresses that are not valid or are unreachable?
Dropping the DHCWG list ...
As before, define "not valid" and "unreachable".
As do you want a list of devices with those addresses, or a list of devices
with those address which don't also have a "working"* address ?
* For whatever definition of working you come up with.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:00:10 +0000
From: Simon Hobson <dh...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315 DECLINE definition
Message-ID: <4f03bb89-82b3-4146-a00c-b1096e02c...@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KS_C_5601-1987
???(Network Innovation Projec) <utae....@kt.com> wrote:
> I think IPv6 is co-existed with IPv4 for a while.
> Devices have dual stack with IPv4 and IPv6 address.
> And there are cases that traces the problem with IPv4 & IPv6 address
> information.
> But, now there have no common key between them.
> So, I think IPv6 information is included with device mac address for tracing
> IPv4.
If I understand you correctly, you are describing a completely separate issue -
that of identifying the MAC-IP pairing for IPv6 because your IPv4 workflow is
based on that.
That too has been done to death in the DHC WG list - to the extent that (IIRC)
there is now a MAC address option defined that clients may send, or was it that
relay agents could add ? I think it might have been the latter since it's
easier to upgrade a few relay agents rather than every client.
For devices not using a relay agent, the MAC address is in the packet.
Also, there's been quite firm statements that the wording of the RFCs that
prohibits "looking inside" the client identifier does not in fact prohibit
that, although since on a multi-homed device that may not be based on the same
interface, it's not necessarily all that useful anyway.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
------------------------------
End of dhcp-users Digest, Vol 100, Issue 8
******************************************
