Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #68 (XML 3315): Bakeoff: Clients - Prefix Length of Assigned Addresses

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 18:19:23 -0000

#68: Bakeoff: Clients - Prefix Length of Assigned Addresses

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Perhaps this should go into the Client's Reply processing text
 (17.1.10.1)? Such as after the "- The client SHOULD perform duplicate
 address detection" bullet as another bullet or paragraph for what to do
 with IA_NA/IA_TA?

 I wonder if, like the "For each IA_PD" (which might actually be "For each
 IAPREFIX") we should have a "For each IAADDR, ...". The two things here
 could be to do DAD and to apply the /128 if no other prefix length
 information is available?

-- 
----------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P4 minor        |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |    Due Date:
----------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:11>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 02:04:58 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I don't think 17.1.10.1 is a right place. The session title is "Reply for
 Solicit (with Rapid Commit), Request, Renew or Rebind". The session title
 of 17.1.10 is "Receipt of Reply Messages". IA_NA, IA_NA could appear to
 other messages too, such as Advert.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:12>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 02:29:52 +0000

Yes, it could. But a client doesn’t do anything meaningful with what’s an
Advertise. It must wait for the Reply.

On 5/3/16, 10:04 PM, "dhcpv6bis issue tracker"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Ticket URL: 
><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:12>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 02:58:34 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Ok. Added the below text into the session 17.1.10.1.

    -  For each IAADDR, which does not have any associated reachability
       information, in order avoid the problems described in [RFC4943],
       hosts MUST NOT assume that any addresses are reachable on-link as
       a result of receiving an IA_NA or IA_TA.  Addresses obtained from
       IA_NA or IA_TA MUST NOT be used to form an implicit prefix with a
       length other than 128.

-- 
----------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  P4 minor        |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                  |    Due Date:
----------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:13>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>