From jqoww@weber.edu Fri Feb 1 00:23:05 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4120B3A689E
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 114.936
X-Spam-Level: ****************************************************************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=114.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-4.071, BAYES_99=3.5, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_BAD_OEV1441=2.401,
FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765,
FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398,
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=1, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001,
J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, MANGLED_ENLARG=2.3,
MANGLED_ENLGMN=5, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5,
RCVD_FORGED_WROTE=2.523, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2=4.325,
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1,
SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SPAMMY_XMAILER=2.337,
URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10,
URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10,
XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_72641=2.278]
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.0000]
* 0.5 HELO_EQ_CPE HELO_EQ_CPE
* 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d
* 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr
* 1)
* 1.0 HOST_EQ_CPE HOST_EQ_CPE
* 1.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP)
* 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d
* 2.4 FH_BAD_OEV1441 Bad X-Mailer version
* 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2
* 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam)
* 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis
* 0.7 SARE_ADLTOBFU BODY: Contains OBFU adult material
* 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_83 BODY: 8alpha-pock-3alpha
* 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis
* 5.0 MANGLED_ENLGMN BODY: mangled enlargement
* 1.7 FB_PENIS BODY: FB_PENIS
* 2.3 MANGLED_ENLARG BODY: mangled enlarge(r|s)
* 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_31 BODY: 3alpha-pock-1alpha
* 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL
* 1.5 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20 BODY: HTML: images with 1600-2000 bytes of words
* 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.7 SARE_HTML_A_BODY FULL: Message body has very strange HTML sequence
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread)
* [URIs: khuttjine.com]
* 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
* [Blocked - see ]
* 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
* [65.31.45.66 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
* 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
* 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address
* [65.31.45.66 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
* 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d
* 0.0 HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3 HTML is very short with a linked image
* 2.3 SPAMMY_XMAILER X-Mailer string is common in spam and not in ham
* 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with
* dynamic-looking rDNS
* 2.3 XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_72641 XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_72641
* -4.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id WtiDJ9AAJX8K
for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-65-31-45-66.woh.res.rr.com (cpe-65-31-45-66.woh.res.rr.com [65.31.45.66])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D2A503A687E
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 137.190.12.80 (HELO fielding3.weber.edu)
by ietf.org with esmtp (CHRNNQVPR CVNUK)
id xkWa6T-mBKMLZ-RT
for dhcwg-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:24:34 -0500
Message-ID: <816d01c864ab$e019c6b0$422d1f41@Guillermo>
From: "Guillermo Bowen"
To: "Laurence Daniel"
Subject: ***SPAM*** 114.936 (5) Gain more in size day by day!
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:24:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_33131_81D5_01C86481.F743BEB0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1441
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_33131_81D5_01C86481.F743BEB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement=20
as your phallus grows into the hardest, biggest, ,thickest and most power=
ful tool=20
you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve constantly wanted about=20
having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or=20
more effective than VPXL+ - THE BEST}!
VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR=20
PEN|S OR YOUR MONEY BACK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET=20
VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY!
CHECK THIS OFFER TO SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE YOUR MALE PACKAGE IN THIS YEAR!=
http://khuttjine=2Ecom/
interest rates and on the securities markets=2E In one bold move, Sorosre=
serves=2Efor their plans=2E Five hours earlier, unbeknownst to the offici=
als, Helmut
creation of George Soros as a public figure=2E From that interview cameTh=
e meeting at the Treasury breaks up=2E As the officials walk out of the
------=_NextPart_33131_81D5_01C86481.F743BEB0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
VPXL+: THE WORLD'S #1 PEN|S EN'L@RGEMENT =
FORMULA!
In =
just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement as
your phallus
grows into the hardest, biggest, ,thickest and most powe=
rful tool
you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve constantly wanted abo=
ut
having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or
more effective than VPXL+ - THE BEST!
VPXL+ IS
GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR
PEN|S OR YOUR MONEY BACK=
- PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET
VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY!
CHECK THIS OFFER TO SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE YOUR MALE P=
ACKAGE IN THIS YEAR!
Tuesday Evening, Wednesday MorningThe pound fails to respo=
nd=2E
planned to sell more than that=2E In fact, when Norman Lamont sa=
idinterest rates and on the securities markets=2E In one bold move, Soros=
reserves=2Efor their plans=2E Five hours earlier, unbeknownst to the =
officials, Helmut
creation of George Soros as a public figure=2E From =
that interview cameThe meeting at the Treasury breaks up=2E As the offici=
als walk out of the
------=_NextPart_33131_81D5_01C86481.F743BEB0--
From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:49:16 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4755428C2A6
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id OLMJAj8nkAtr
for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAD628C839
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:22:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder
From: mailman-owner@ietf.org
To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:04:07 -0800
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id:
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing
list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use
it to change it or unsubscribe from a list.
You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such
changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of
the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the
word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to
you with instructions.
If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to
mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks!
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg/dhcwg-archive%40megatron.ietf.org
From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:49:23 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2353628C8E1
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:46:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jRrUiI0TlplA
for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80F728DB10
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:22:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder
From: mailman-owner@ietf.org
To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:04:08 -0800
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id:
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com
This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing
list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use
it to change it or unsubscribe from a list.
You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such
changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of
the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the
word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to
you with instructions.
If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to
mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks!
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg/dhcwg-archive%40megatron.ietf.org
From dhcwings@sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 1 06:20:59 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FAD293066
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:20:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 80.059
X-Spam-Level: ****************************************************************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=80.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597,
FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999,
HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=1,
MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5,
RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877,
RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10,
URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10,
URIBL_WS_SURBL=10]
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.0000]
* 0.3 HELO_EQ_FR HELO_EQ_FR
* 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d
* 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr
* 1)
* 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d
* 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.5 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread)
* [URIs: minemean.com]
* 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address
* [80.15.143.86 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
* 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
* [80.15.143.86 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
* 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d
* 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with
* dynamic-looking rDNS
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 7KPPPrXgss1M
for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ARouen-203-1-1-86.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr (ARouen-203-1-1-86.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.15.143.86])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 49C7E295749
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Return: allowed
X-Mailer: CME-V6.5.4.3; MSN
Received: (qmail 9597 by uid 825); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:53:57 +0100
Message-Id: <20080201035357.9599.qmail@ARouen-203-1-1-86.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr>
To:
Subject: ***SPAM*** 80.059 (5) February 72% OFF
From:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:21 -0800 (PST)
From keane@tvldyn.com Fri Feb 1 06:42:45 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085E028CB95
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:42:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 74.402
X-Spam-Level: ****************************************************************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=74.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, DRUGS_ERECTILE=1,
FB_CIALIS_LEO3=3.899, FB_MED1CAT=3.579, FUZZY_MEDICATION=2.717,
HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6,
MANGLED_CIALIS=2.5, MANGLED_DOSE=2.3, MANGLED_MEDCTN=2.3,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905,
SARE_SPEC_LEO_MEDS=1.666, SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_C=0.003, URIBL_BLACK=20,
URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083]
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.0000]
* 0.0 SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_C Subject contains a gappy version of 'cialis'
* 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_37 BODY: 3alpha-pock-7alpha
* 2.3 MANGLED_DOSE BODY: mangled dose
* 2.5 MANGLED_CIALIS BODY: mangled Cialis
* 3.9 FB_CIALIS_LEO3 BODY: Uses a mis-spelled version of cialis.
* 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_12 BODY: 1alpha-pock-2alpha
* 2.3 MANGLED_MEDCTN BODY: mangled medication(s)
* 3.6 FB_MED1CAT BODY: Phrase: Med1cat
* 2.7 FUZZY_MEDICATION BODY: Attempt to obfuscate words in spam
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_LEO_MEDS BODY: obfuscated subject body
* 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
* 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
* [cf: 100]
* 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
* [URIs: travelthus.com]
* 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: travelthus.com]
* 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist
* [URIs: travelthus.com]
* 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread)
* [URIs: travelthus.com]
* 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
* [90.201.83.228 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
* 1.0 DRUGS_ERECTILE Refers to an erectile drug
* 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fQ4xLJPbVoVz
for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 5ac953e4.bb.sky.com (5ac953e4.bb.sky.com [90.201.83.228])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8086628C807
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000801c864de$02e69813$d308cf93@hhpjibk>
From: "lester laurenz"
To:
Subject: ***SPAM*** 74.402 (5) Ciallis at $2.8 per d0se
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:41:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864DE.02E0C7A6"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864DE.02E0C7A6
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
the antibiotic erythromycin (E-Mycin, Eryc, Ery-Tab, others); an =
antifungal medication such as itraconazole (Sporanox) or ketoconazole =
(Nizoral); or HIV medications such as indinavir (Crixivan), ritonavir =
(Norvir), and others.
Buy Cialis Online. THE LOWEST Cialis PRICE GUARANTEED cheaapest =
med1cations
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864DE.02E0C7A6
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
the antibiotic erythromycin (E-Mycin, Eryc, Ery-Tab, others); an =
antifungal medication such as itraconazole (Sporanox) or ketoconazole =
(Nizoral); or HIV medications such as indinavir (Crixivan), ritonavir =
(Norvir), and others.
Buy Cialis Online. =
THE LOWEST Cialis PRICE GUARANTEED cheaapest med1cations
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864DE.02E0C7A6--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 1 13:00:02 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561843A693F;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:00:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id CvsR+5htRytS; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562F63A6978;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:00:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B923A6915
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id tNGVUUEqvswE for ;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE283A693F
for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:59:58 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,292,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="85263516"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158])
by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 16:01:33 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13])
by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m11L1XTN000476;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:01:33 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com
[64.102.31.102])
by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m11L1X7m017137;
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:01:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by
xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:00:07 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:00:06 -0500
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB210634FC07@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080131161010.GA3887@isc.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
thread-index: AchkNXNsB//Qo1r5TUK/t8xsRUk2/wA3Xn6Q
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)"
To: "pavan_kurapati" , "DHC WG"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2008 21:00:07.0669 (UTC)
FILETIME=[6CF3BA50:01C86515]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
BTW:
We probably made the original DHCPv6 bulk lease query (UDP based) more
complicated than it had needed to be. Part of the reason for that is the
DHCPv6 lease query is more client oriented and also the framework was
there to provide lots of different query types.
I haven't looked into it carefully, but it would seem that for DHCPv4 we
could just add a new lease query message which would be a
"DHCPLEASEQUERYNEXTADDRESS" which would interpret the existing "Query by
IP address" as specifying the last address returned and requesting that
the "next" address be returned.
This still has the performance (latency) issue of one request/response
per lease, but does avoid having to go to TCP.
Of course, I think the TCP approach used for DHCPv6 would be far
superior as there is one request with many potential responses flowing
over a TCP session.
---
I'm somewhat confused by the "TCP is a problem for a layer 2 device"
statement as so is UDP. Note the following text in RFC 4388:
o The giaddr MUST be set to the IP address of the requester (i.e.,
the access concentrator). The giaddr is independent of the
"ciaddr" field to be searched -- it is simply the return address
of the DHCPLEASEUNASSIGNED, DHCPLEASEACTIVE, or DHCPLEASEUNKNOWN
message from the DHCP server.
Note that this use of the giaddr is consistent with the
definition of giaddr in [RFC2131], where the giaddr is always
used as the return address of the DHCP response message. In some
(but not all) contexts in RFC 2131, the giaddr is used as the
"key" to access the appropriate address pool. The DHCPLEASEQUERY
message is one of those cases where the giaddr MUST NOT be used
as such a "key".
This is because the normal htype/hlen/chaddr fields are used to specify
the client being queried for; they are not available for layer 2
communication.
So, if your DSLAM has no IP address with which to communicate, it isn't
going to be able to do (UDP) DHCPLEASEQUERY either.
- Bernie
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 4 02:46:21 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFA13A6EAB;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id NGHaCSQPdoe0; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1F13A6E9B;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DCB3A6E16
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id kNNRBDLN7TFM for ;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kecgate06.infosys.com (kecgate06.infosys.com [61.95.162.82])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8308E3A6D6A
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:46:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.81]) by
kecgate06.infosys.com with InterScan Message Security Suite;
Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:18:15 +0530
Received: from blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.41]) by
indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:17:36 +0530
Received: from [10.10.11.146] (10.66.216.45) by blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com
(10.66.236.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.0.744.0; Mon, 4 Feb 2008
16:17:35 +0530
From: Bharat Joshi
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)"
In-Reply-To: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB210634FC07@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
References: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB210634FC07@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
Organization: Infosys Technologies Ltd
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:05:59 +0530
Message-ID: <1202121359.2719.61.camel@magadha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2008 10:47:36.0332 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5AAFFCC0:01C8671B]
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Bernie,
> We probably made the original DHCPv6 bulk lease query (UDP based) more
> complicated than it had needed to be. Part of the reason for that is the
> DHCPv6 lease query is more client oriented and also the framework was
> there to provide lots of different query types.
I agree.
> I haven't looked into it carefully, but it would seem that for DHCPv4 we
> could just add a new lease query message which would be a
> "DHCPLEASEQUERYNEXTADDRESS" which would interpret the existing "Query by
> IP address" as specifying the last address returned and requesting that
> the "next" address be returned.
>
> This still has the performance (latency) issue of one request/response
> per lease, but does avoid having to go to TCP.
I think what Pavan is looking at is to get all the lease information for
a given Access Concentrator in one go. This will be useful in avoiding
the data traffic coming to control path which will happen with current
DHCPLEASEQUERY mechanism.
> Of course, I think the TCP approach used for DHCPv6 would be far
> superior as there is one request with many potential responses flowing
> over a TCP session.
>
Yes. I think Pavan proposed TCP because that takes care of reliability,
retransmission stuff and it makes sure that all the lease information
for a given Access Concentrator has been received.
BTW, as mentioned before this does not completely remove the requirement
of doing normal LEASEQUERY. Existing LEASEQUERY would be useful in cases
where a line bounces and we need to get details for just one connection.
> I'm somewhat confused by the "TCP is a problem for a layer 2 device"
> statement as so is UDP.
Yes. But in case of UDP, Layer 2 Relay Agent can generate a DHCP
leasequery similar to a DHCP client generates a DHCPDISCOVER message. We
have suggested an extension of existing DHCP leasequery mechanism [RFC
4388] in one of our previous draft [This draft has expired and we would
be submitting a new version shortly].
> Note the following text in RFC 4388:
>
> o The giaddr MUST be set to the IP address of the requester (i.e.,
> the access concentrator). The giaddr is independent of the
> "ciaddr" field to be searched -- it is simply the return address
> of the DHCPLEASEUNASSIGNED, DHCPLEASEACTIVE, or DHCPLEASEUNKNOWN
> message from the DHCP server.
>
> Note that this use of the giaddr is consistent with the
> definition of giaddr in [RFC2131], where the giaddr is always
> used as the return address of the DHCP response message. In some
> (but not all) contexts in RFC 2131, the giaddr is used as the
> "key" to access the appropriate address pool. The DHCPLEASEQUERY
> message is one of those cases where the giaddr MUST NOT be used
> as such a "key".
>
> This is because the normal htype/hlen/chaddr fields are used to specify
> the client being queried for; they are not available for layer 2
> communication.
>
> So, if your DSLAM has no IP address with which to communicate, it isn't
> going to be able to do (UDP) DHCPLEASEQUERY either.
This is not the case. Even a DHCP client without an IP address is able
to communicate using UDP when it generates DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST
messages. In our draft, we have suggested that Layer 2 Relay Agent would
generate a LeaseQuery with source IP address as 0.0.0.0 and destination
address as 255.255.255.255. This LeaseQuery is sent towards the Layer 3
Relay Agent and Layer 3 Relay Agent process it similar to how it would
have handled other DHCP messages i.e. populate 'giaddr' and send it to
the configured DHCP servers.
There are some issues here but they have been resolved after some
discussion on DHC WG mailing list and we have described them in our
draft. I hope this answer your question.
Thanks,
Bharat
PS: You can take a look at the older version of this draft at
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-joshi-dhc-layer2-relay-agent/
PPS: Please look at section 7.2.1 which talks about generating
leasequery messages.
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 4 08:38:35 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1DC63A6FDF;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fCeTZnRmCPRu; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BCF3A6F93;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239B63A6F65
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yJhs5yYSfg9g for ;
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SFOVWL03.infosys.com (sfovwl03.infosys.com [216.251.50.9])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9FE3A6F02
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.81]) by
SFOVWL03.infosys.com with InterScan Message Security Suite;
Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:38:11 -0800
Received: from blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.41]) by
indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:10:03 +0530
Received: from BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.21]) by
blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.41]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Feb 2008
22:10:03 +0530
From: pavan_kurapati
To: Bharat Joshi , "Bernie Volz (volz)"
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:05:06 +0530
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
Thread-Index: AchnG1qHXW6hfXsDQwuQjfXRmZ5V4gAMIt7O
Message-ID: <7221E17E68B1A944ADCE8A83364DBEE6146551EBBF@BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com>
References: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB210634FC07@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>,
<1202121359.2719.61.camel@magadha>
In-Reply-To: <1202121359.2719.61.camel@magadha>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2008 16:40:03.0350 (UTC)
FILETIME=[974ADB60:01C8674C]
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Yes, What I mentioned was to use TCP based bulk lease query in case of Layer 3 Relay Agents where establishing the TCP connection is possible. Since Layer 2 Relay Agents do not have an IP address and also DHCP Server's address this option is difficult . The current leasequery mechanism is data driven hence I proposed query by 'Remote-ID' as a solution to get the lease details reliably without waiting for the traffic to be initiated. As Bharat pointed out, generating leasequery in Layer 2 Relay Agent itself needs to be defined which we did in our earlier draft.
Thanks,
Pavan
________________________________________
From: Bharat Joshi
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:05 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: pavan_kurapati; DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lease updates after Relay Agent crash
Bernie,
> We probably made the original DHCPv6 bulk lease query (UDP based) more
> complicated than it had needed to be. Part of the reason for that is the
> DHCPv6 lease query is more client oriented and also the framework was
> there to provide lots of different query types.
I agree.
> I haven't looked into it carefully, but it would seem that for DHCPv4 we
> could just add a new lease query message which would be a
> "DHCPLEASEQUERYNEXTADDRESS" which would interpret the existing "Query by
> IP address" as specifying the last address returned and requesting that
> the "next" address be returned.
>
> This still has the performance (latency) issue of one request/response
> per lease, but does avoid having to go to TCP.
I think what Pavan is looking at is to get all the lease information for
a given Access Concentrator in one go. This will be useful in avoiding
the data traffic coming to control path which will happen with current
DHCPLEASEQUERY mechanism.
> Of course, I think the TCP approach used for DHCPv6 would be far
> superior as there is one request with many potential responses flowing
> over a TCP session.
>
Yes. I think Pavan proposed TCP because that takes care of reliability,
retransmission stuff and it makes sure that all the lease information
for a given Access Concentrator has been received.
BTW, as mentioned before this does not completely remove the requirement
of doing normal LEASEQUERY. Existing LEASEQUERY would be useful in cases
where a line bounces and we need to get details for just one connection.
> I'm somewhat confused by the "TCP is a problem for a layer 2 device"
> statement as so is UDP.
Yes. But in case of UDP, Layer 2 Relay Agent can generate a DHCP
leasequery similar to a DHCP client generates a DHCPDISCOVER message. We
have suggested an extension of existing DHCP leasequery mechanism [RFC
4388] in one of our previous draft [This draft has expired and we would
be submitting a new version shortly].
> Note the following text in RFC 4388:
>
> o The giaddr MUST be set to the IP address of the requester (i.e.,
> the access concentrator). The giaddr is independent of the
> "ciaddr" field to be searched -- it is simply the return address
> of the DHCPLEASEUNASSIGNED, DHCPLEASEACTIVE, or DHCPLEASEUNKNOWN
> message from the DHCP server.
>
> Note that this use of the giaddr is consistent with the
> definition of giaddr in [RFC2131], where the giaddr is always
> used as the return address of the DHCP response message. In some
> (but not all) contexts in RFC 2131, the giaddr is used as the
> "key" to access the appropriate address pool. The DHCPLEASEQUERY
> message is one of those cases where the giaddr MUST NOT be used
> as such a "key".
>
> This is because the normal htype/hlen/chaddr fields are used to specify
> the client being queried for; they are not available for layer 2
> communication.
>
> So, if your DSLAM has no IP address with which to communicate, it isn't
> going to be able to do (UDP) DHCPLEASEQUERY either.
This is not the case. Even a DHCP client without an IP address is able
to communicate using UDP when it generates DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST
messages. In our draft, we have suggested that Layer 2 Relay Agent would
generate a LeaseQuery with source IP address as 0.0.0.0 and destination
address as 255.255.255.255. This LeaseQuery is sent towards the Layer 3
Relay Agent and Layer 3 Relay Agent process it similar to how it would
have handled other DHCP messages i.e. populate 'giaddr' and send it to
the configured DHCP servers.
There are some issues here but they have been resolved after some
discussion on DHC WG mailing list and we have described them in our
draft. I hope this answer your question.
Thanks,
Bharat
PS: You can take a look at the older version of this draft at
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-joshi-dhc-layer2-relay-agent/
PPS: Please look at section 7.2.1 which talks about generating
leasequery messages.
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From info@bravocentral.com Tue Feb 5 10:48:57 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@mail.ietf.org
Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51)
id 0473C3A78BA; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from i538775BB.versanet.de (i538775BB.versanet.de [83.135.117.187])
by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AC363A8096
for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4a6601c867a6$0287a300$bb758753@i538775BB.versanet.de>
From: "Support"
To: "dhcwg-archive@ietf.org"
Subject: Up to 50% Off Clearance Products
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:26:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0AFB_2C694A6C.39E3F0C8"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0AFB_2C694A6C.39E3F0C8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_DAE7_C530AFB2.C694A6C3"
------=_NextPart_001_DAE7_C530AFB2.C694A6C3
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The development of the printing press, however, presented printers with =
dilemmas: texts from the fifteenth through to the seventeenth centuries =
show many internal inconsistencies, with the same word often being spelled =
differently within the same text. Famously, Shakespeare spelled his own =
name in many different ways. Additionally, they were tempted to choose from=20
the various spellings based on typographical criterion, e.g. to get =
uniform line lengths when assembling type pieces on a composing stick. It =
being easier to make one of the lines of type longer than to make the other=20
lines shorter, word lengths tended to standardize on the longer spellings.
=20
Starting from NOW you can order =20
Original Viagra and other Genuine Products!=20
Other semantic change includes narrowing and broadening. Narrowing a word =
semantically limits its alternative meanings. For example the word 'girl' =
once meant 'a young child' and 'hound' (spelt 'hund') meant 'all canines', =
and now of course it means a particular type. Examples of words that have =
been broadened semantically include 'dog' (which once meant a particular =
breed).
=20
Get it here: http://www.cabaretsandclubs.info=20
=20
The closest one might come to CS in an interview is when the subject is =
interrupted by a close friend or family member, or perhaps must answer the =
phone. CS is used in a completely unmonitored environment where the subject=20
feels most comfortable and will use their natural vernacular without =
overtly thinking about it.
=20
Prices Are TAX Free - Worldwide Shipping - Prices are VAT Free
------=_NextPart_001_DAE7_C530AFB2.C694A6C3
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Modern historical linguistics dates from the late 18th century and=20
grew out of the earlier discipline of philology, the study of ancient =
texts and documents, which goes back to antiquity.
Starting from NOW you can =
order =20
Original =
Viagra and other Genuine Products!=20
The sociolinguist =
William Labov famously recorded the change in pronunciation in a relatively=20
short period in the American resort of Martha=92s Vineyard and showed how =
this was the result of social tensions and processes.[1] Even in the =
relatively short time that broadcast media have been available, we can =
observe the difference between the =91marked=92 pronunciation of the =
newsreaders of the 1940s and the 1950s and the more neutral, =91unmarked=92=20
pronunciation of today. The greater acceptance and fashionability of =
regional accents in the media may also reflect a more democratic, less =
formal society.
The development of the printing press, however, presented =
printers with dilemmas: texts from the fifteenth through to the seventeenth=20
centuries show many internal inconsistencies, with the same word often =
being spelled differently within the same text. Famously, Shakespeare =
spelled his own name in many different ways. Additionally, they were =
tempted to choose from the various spellings based on typographical =
criterion, e.g. to get uniform line lengths when assembling type pieces on =
a composing stick. It being easier to make one of the lines of type longer =
than to make the other lines shorter, word lengths tended to standardize on=20
the longer spellings.
Prices Are TAX Free - =
Worldwide Shipping - Prices are VAT =
Free
------=_NextPart_001_DAE7_C530AFB2.C694A6C3--
------=_NextPart_000_0AFB_2C694A6C.39E3F0C8
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="=?iso-8859-1?B?B2C694A6C39E3F0C8DAE=?="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <9E3F0C8DAE7C$530AFB2C$694A6C39@E3F0C8DAE7C530AF>
/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD/7QSqUGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+kAAAAAAHgAAwAAAEgA
SAAAAAAC2gIo/+H/4QL5AkUDRwUoA/wAAgAAAEgASAAAAAAC2AIoAAEAAABkAAAAAQADAwMAAAAB
Jw8AAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAgAGQGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4
QklNA+0AAAAAABAASAAAAAEAAQBIAAAAAQABOEJJTQPzAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAA
AAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgABAAAAAAAAAAI4QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEA
L2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEAMgAAAAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklN
A/gAAAAAAHAAAP////////////////////////////8D6AAAAAD/////////////////////////
////A+gAAAAA/////////////////////////////wPoAAAAAP//////////////////////////
//8D6AAAOEJJTQQAAAAAAAACAAA4QklNBAIAAAAAAAIAADhCSU0ECAAAAAAAEAAAAAEAAAJAAAAC
QAAAAAA4QklNBAkAAAAAApkAAAABAAAAgAAAAAEAAAGAAAABgAAAAn0AGAAB/9j/4AAQSkZJRgAB
AgEASABIAAD//gAnRmlsZSB3cml0dGVuIGJ5IEFkb2JlIFBob3Rvc2hvcKggNC4wAP/uAA5BZG9i
ZQBkgAAAAAH/2wCEAAwICAgJCAwJCQwRCwoLERUPDAwPFRgTExUTExgRDAwMDAwMEQwMDAwMDAwM
DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwBDQsLDQ4NEA4OEBQODg4UFA4ODg4UEQwMDAwMEREMDAwMDAwR
DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDP/AABEIAAEAgAMBIgACEQEDEQH/3QAEAAj/xAE/
AAABBQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAADAAECBAUGBwgJCgsBAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAEAAgMEBQYHCAkK
CxAAAQQBAwIEAgUHBggFAwwzAQACEQMEIRIxBUFRYRMicYEyBhSRobFCIyQVUsFiMzRygtFDByWS
U/Dh8WNzNRaisoMmRJNUZEXCo3Q2F9JV4mXys4TD03Xj80YnlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpam
tsbW5vY3R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3EQACAgECBAQDBAUGBwcGBTUBAAIRAyExEgRBUWFxIhMFMoGRFKGx
QiPBUtHwMyRi4XKCkkNTFWNzNPElBhaisoMHJjXC0kSTVKMXZEVVNnRl4vKzhMPTdePzRpSkhbSV
xNTk9KW1xdXl9VZmdoaWprbG1ub2JzdHV2d3h5ent8f/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/APTqPon4/wAAir5X
SQGyn6oSXyukip+qEl8rpJKfqhJfK6SSn6oSXyukkp+qEl8rpJKfqhJfK6SSn6oSXyukkp//2QA4
QklNBAYAAAAAAAcABAAAAAEBAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0
LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGQAAAAAAf/bAIQABgQEBwUHCwYGCw4KCAoOEQ4ODg4RFhMTExMTFhEMDAwM
DAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAEHCQkTDBMiExMiFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwM
DAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAAwZAAwERAAIRAQMR
Af/dAAQAyP/EAaIAAAAHAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAQFAwIGAQAHCAkKCwEAAgIDAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA
AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAACAQMDAgQCBgcDBAIGAnMBAgMRBAAFIRIxQVEGE2EicYEUMpGhBxWxQiPB
UtHhMxZi8CRygvElQzRTkqKyY3PCNUQnk6OzNhdUZHTD0uIIJoMJChgZhJRFRqS0VtNVKBry4/PE
1OT0ZXWFlaW1xdXl9WZ2hpamtsbW5vY3R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3OEhYaHiImKi4yNjo+Ck5SVlpeYmZ
qbnJ2en5KjpKWmp6ipqqusra6voRAAICAQIDBQUEBQYECAMDbQEAAhEDBCESMUEFURNhIgZxgZEy
obHwFMHR4SNCFVJicvEzJDRDghaSUyWiY7LCB3PSNeJEgxdUkwgJChgZJjZFGidkdFU38qOzwygp
0+PzhJSktMTU5PRldYWVpbXF1eX1RlZmdoaWprbG1ub2R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3OEhYaHiImKi4yNjo
+DlJWWl5iZmpucnZ6fkqOkpaanqKmqq6ytrq+v/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A9N/vv+Lv+SWFhv5/7F37
7/i7/kliu/n/ALFbJ63H/dv0+lTFd/P/AGKj++/y/wDkliu/n/sVa29Tl8fSn7fCn/JPfFIRH/AY
GTv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Bi
rv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/w
GKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3
/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd
/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFX
f8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gM
Vd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+
AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8A
gMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/
4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq
7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wAB
irv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Bi
rv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/w
GKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3
/AYq/wD/2Q==
------=_NextPart_000_0AFB_2C694A6C.39E3F0C8--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 5 23:36:29 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F52F3A6AB0;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fEGNGcfzpvZT; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C343A6A66;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4F03A6A21
for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Z2jf8YafsVUH for ;
Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A55E3A6AA8
for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so1311266uge.46
for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.24.11 with SMTP id b11mr2332876ugj.2.1202283465199;
Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.105.3 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:07:45 +0530
From: "ravi kumar"
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC 3315: Reg Message Retransmisison of Client
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0268114844=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--===============0268114844==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_12029_29948431.1202283465140"
------=_Part_12029_29948431.1202283465140
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified
in RFC 3315:
*14** Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges*
MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT (disregarding the
randomization added by the use of RAND). If MRT has a value of 0, there is
no upper limit on the value of RT.
Otherwise: if (RT > MRT)
RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
In the above case for MRT >0, at some time during retransmission (RT
increases...), MRT no more remains an upper bound, as RT becomes greater
than MRT (by the above equality).If muy understanding is correct in this
regard, what would be role of MRT parameter in Message Retransmission.
Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen
from below lines:
MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may retransmit
a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails once the client
has transmitted the message MRC times.
MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may retransmit a
message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails once MRD seconds
have elapsed since the client first transmitted the message.
If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever either
of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are met.
If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the message
until it receives a response.
Please clarify me in this regard.
regards
Ravi
------=_Part_12029_29948431.1202283465140
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified in RFC 3315:
14 Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges
MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT (disregarding the randomization added by the use of RAND). If MRT has a value of 0, there is no upper limit on the value of RT.
Otherwise: if (RT > MRT)
RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
In the above case for MRT >0, at some time during retransmission (RT increases...), MRT no more remains an upper bound, as RT becomes greater than MRT (by the above equality).If muy understanding is correct in this regard, what would be role of MRT parameter in Message Retransmission.
Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen from below lines:
MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may retransmit a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails once the client has transmitted the message MRC times.
MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may retransmit a message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails once MRD seconds have elapsed since the client first transmitted the message.
If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever either of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are met.
If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the message until it receives a response.
Please clarify me in this regard.
regards
Ravi
------=_Part_12029_29948431.1202283465140--
--===============0268114844==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============0268114844==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 00:13:39 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0739B3A7560;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id RxlG6ZX77pNw; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D512B3A7490;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC113A7047
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id uKHZN7U50i+2 for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com
[216.82.250.131])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A82D3A7490
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:13:35 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Q4997C@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1202372105!1054579!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 5338 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2008 08:15:05 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8)
by server-2.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
7 Feb 2008 08:15:05 -0000
Received: from il06exr02.mot.com (il06exr02.mot.com [129.188.137.132])
by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m178F5OT016296
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:15:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142])
by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id m178F41d004071
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:15:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com (zmy16exm66.ap.mot.com [10.179.4.26])
by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m178F36P004066
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:15:04 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:15:03 +0800
Message-ID: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B053ACA08@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B0415B33B@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: RFC 4030
Thread-Index: AceK7kDcpWhNB+f7RB6uk4y56Ey8nzecxugQ
From: "Aggarwal Vivek-Q4997C"
To:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC 4030
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2082035377=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============2082035377==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C86961.89C66981"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86961.89C66981
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20
=20
Does anybody have information that whether ISC - DHCP supports RFC 4030
and how DHCP Server can allocate secure IP Address to the client
=20
Regards
Vivek Aggarwal
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86961.89C66981
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
Does anybody have information that =
whether
ISC – DHCP supports RFC 4030 and how DHCP Server can allocate =
secure IP
Address to the client
Regards
=
Vivek =
Aggarwal
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86961.89C66981--
--===============2082035377==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============2082035377==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 01:30:33 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B7F3A7689;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id XR4Q15H6GnlM; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812903A766F;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A0E3A7677
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jEGRzmRFXiwI for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.168])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574263A766C
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2098473uge.46
for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.122.12 with SMTP id z12mr3813131ugm.18.1202376720101;
Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.105.3 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:02:00 +0530
From: "ravi kumar"
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3315: Reg Message Retransmisison of Client
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1795837150=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--===============1795837150==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_16516_26707518.1202376720092"
------=_Part_16516_26707518.1202376720092
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Can someome please respond to the mail!
regards
Ravi
On Feb 6, 2008 1:07 PM, ravi kumar wrote:
> I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified
> in RFC 3315:
> *14** Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges*
>
> MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT (disregarding the
> randomization added by the use of RAND). If MRT has a value of 0, there is
> no upper limit on the value of RT.
>
> Otherwise: if (RT > MRT)
>
> RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
>
>
> In the above case for MRT >0, at some time during retransmission (RT
> increases...), MRT no more remains an upper bound, as RT becomes greater
> than MRT (by the above equality).If muy understanding is correct in this
> regard, what would be role of MRT parameter in Message Retransmission.
>
> Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen
> from below lines:
>
> MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may
> retransmit a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails once
> the client has transmitted the message MRC times.
>
> MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may retransmit
> a message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails once MRD seconds
> have elapsed since the client first transmitted the message.
>
> If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever
> either of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are met.
>
> If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the message
> until it receives a response.
> Please clarify me in this regard.
>
> regards
> Ravi
>
------=_Part_16516_26707518.1202376720092
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<Resending the mail, as there is no Reponse>
Can someome please respond to the mail!
regards
Ravi
On Feb 6, 2008 1:07 PM, ravi kumar <
ravikumar.lrk@gmail.com> wrote:
I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified in RFC 3315:
14 Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges
MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT (disregarding the randomization added by the use of RAND). If MRT has a value of 0, there is no upper limit on the value of RT.
Otherwise: if (RT > MRT)
RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
In the above case for MRT >0, at some time during retransmission (RT increases...), MRT no more remains an upper bound, as RT becomes greater than MRT (by the above equality).If muy understanding is correct in this regard, what would be role of MRT parameter in Message Retransmission.
Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen from below lines:
MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may retransmit a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails once the client has transmitted the message MRC times.
MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may retransmit a message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails once MRD seconds have elapsed since the client first transmitted the message.
If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever either of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are met.
If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the message until it receives a response.
Please clarify me in this regard.
regards
Ravi
------=_Part_16516_26707518.1202376720092--
--===============1795837150==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============1795837150==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 03:12:29 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA543A77FC;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:12:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352,
BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6,
RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Wo+cbWmAG2PW; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878D93A7755;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:12:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CA53A77E3
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id bFBCW8N0k59T for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FD93A77EF
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP
id m17BB6DH026427; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:11:06 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m17BBLgY010260;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:11:23 +0700 (ICT)
From: Robert Elz
To: "ravi kumar"
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:11:21 +0700
Message-ID: <11937.1202382681@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3315: Reg Message Retransmisison of Client
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:02:00 +0530
From: "ravi kumar"
Message-ID:
|
| Can someome please respond to the mail!
I am guessing you got no response (aside from it being only 24 hours,
which is a bit short to panic!) because no-one really understands what
your problem is.
I'm no expert on this, so I'm going to guess at what your issue is
(if I'm wrong, then you can explain better, and then perhaps someone
else will reply) - or if I'm right in the guess, but my explanation is
wrong, someone who does know the right answer might then be able to
give a better response.
| > I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified
| > in RFC 3315:
| > *14** Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges*
I suspect that your problem is all in the way you're interpreting the
the following sentence ...
| > MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT
and that you are prehaps reading "specifies" as if it said "is".
Then, when you see ...
| > RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
MRT can't be the upper bound, as RT is bigger (perhaps). But
"specifies" != "is", rather it means "tells you how to work out"
which is what happens here.
Once RT has become bigger than MRT, further values of RT are based
solely upon the value of MRT, and no longer depend upon the previous
RT value, and MRT doesn't change, so we have an upper bound upon RT
(it gets no larger than a bit bigger than MRT)
| > Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen
| > from below lines:
Yes, that all looks very clear to me.
| > Please clarify me in this regard.
Clarify what?
RT (as limited by MRT) says how long to wait between retransmits.
MRC and MRD (in combination) say when you should stop retransmitting
and give up.
Is this the question, and does this answer help? (And to others, did
I misrepresent the way it works?)
kre
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 03:45:12 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F203A7893;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Ktqa5cym0jG5; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54793A76F7;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA233A67F3
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id UDhvba11862r for ;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.169])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551773A7887
for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2137036uge.46
for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.115.6 with SMTP id s6mr3903038ugm.71.1202384798128;
Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.67.105.3 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:16:38 +0530
From: "ravi kumar"
To: "Robert Elz"
In-Reply-To: <11937.1202382681@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
<11937.1202382681@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3315: Reg Message Retransmisison of Client
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1794841965=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--===============1794841965==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_16849_15972290.1202384798125"
------=_Part_16849_15972290.1202384798125
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Thanks kre for the Reply. You have answered my question !
regards
Ravi
On Feb 7, 2008 4:41 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:02:00 +0530
> From: "ravi kumar"
> Message-ID: <
> adf2a3a0802070132r1f9d4a3ft5cce0802ba7ea41a@mail.gmail.com>
>
> |
> | Can someome please respond to the mail!
>
> I am guessing you got no response (aside from it being only 24 hours,
> which is a bit short to panic!) because no-one really understands what
> your problem is.
>
> I'm no expert on this, so I'm going to guess at what your issue is
> (if I'm wrong, then you can explain better, and then perhaps someone
> else will reply) - or if I'm right in the guess, but my explanation is
> wrong, someone who does know the right answer might then be able to
> give a better response.
>
>
> | > I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client,
> specified
> | > in RFC 3315:
> | > *14** Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges*
>
> I suspect that your problem is all in the way you're interpreting the
> the following sentence ...
>
> | > MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT
>
> and that you are prehaps reading "specifies" as if it said "is".
>
> Then, when you see ...
>
> | > RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
>
> MRT can't be the upper bound, as RT is bigger (perhaps). But
> "specifies" != "is", rather it means "tells you how to work out"
> which is what happens here.
>
> Once RT has become bigger than MRT, further values of RT are based
> solely upon the value of MRT, and no longer depend upon the previous
> RT value, and MRT doesn't change, so we have an upper bound upon RT
> (it gets no larger than a bit bigger than MRT)
>
> | > Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as
> seen
> | > from below lines:
>
> Yes, that all looks very clear to me.
>
> | > Please clarify me in this regard.
>
> Clarify what?
>
> RT (as limited by MRT) says how long to wait between retransmits.
> MRC and MRD (in combination) say when you should stop retransmitting
> and give up.
>
> Is this the question, and does this answer help? (And to others, did
> I misrepresent the way it works?)
>
> kre
>
>
------=_Part_16849_15972290.1202384798125
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Thanks kre for the Reply. You have answered my question !
regards
Ravi
On Feb 7, 2008 4:41 PM, Robert Elz <
kre@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:02:00 +0530
From: "ravi kumar" <ravikumar.lrk@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <adf2a3a0802070132r1f9d4a3ft5cce0802ba7ea41a@mail.gmail.com>
| <Resending the mail, as there is no Reponse>
| Can someome please respond to the mail!
I am guessing you got no response (aside from it being only 24 hours,
which is a bit short to panic!) because no-one really understands what
your problem is.
I'm no expert on this, so I'm going to guess at what your issue is
(if I'm wrong, then you can explain better, and then perhaps someone
else will reply) - or if I'm right in the guess, but my explanation is
wrong, someone who does know the right answer might then be able to
give a better response.
| > I need clarification regarding Message-retransmission of Client, specified
| > in RFC 3315:
| > *14** Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges*
I suspect that your problem is all in the way you're interpreting the
the following sentence ...
| > MRT specifies an upper bound on the value of RT
and that you are prehaps reading "specifies" as if it said "is".
Then, when you see ...
| > RT = MRT + RAND*MRT
MRT can't be the upper bound, as RT is bigger (perhaps). But
"specifies" != "is", rather it means "tells you how to work out"
which is what happens here.
Once RT has become bigger than MRT, further values of RT are based
solely upon the value of MRT, and no longer depend upon the previous
RT value, and MRT doesn't change, so we have an upper bound upon RT
(it gets no larger than a bit bigger than MRT)
| > Also, the message exchange termination is governed by MRC and MRD, as seen
| > from below lines:
Yes, that all looks very clear to me.
| > Please clarify me in this regard.
Clarify what?
RT (as limited by MRT) says how long to wait between retransmits.
MRC and MRD (in combination) say when you should stop retransmitting
and give up.
Is this the question, and does this answer help? (And to others, did
I misrepresent the way it works?)
kre
------=_Part_16849_15972290.1202384798125--
--===============1794841965==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============1794841965==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 15:34:05 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0F93A7DE7;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:34:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6,
USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Gl5U0QdLvfnR; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556F43A7DCB;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:33:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4913A7D4E;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id FfevEdEJqeps; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD203A7D63;
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70)
id C0F2810DC7B; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:33:43 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20080207233343.C0F2810DC7B@bosco.isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC 5107 on DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5107
Title: DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption
Author: R. Johnson, J. Jumarasamy,
K. Kinnear, M. Stapp
Status: Standards Track
Date: February 2008
Mailbox: raj@cisco.com,
jayk@cisco.com,
kkinnear@cisco.com, mjs@cisco.com
Pages: 7
Characters: 14837
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-05.txt
URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5107.txt
This memo defines a new suboption of the DHCP relay information
option that allows the DHCP relay to specify a new value for the
Server Identifier option, which is inserted by the DHCP Server. This
allows the DHCP relay to act as the actual DHCP server such that
RENEW DHCPREQUESTs will come to the relay instead of going to the
server directly. This gives the relay the opportunity to include the
Relay Agent option with appropriate suboptions even on DHCP RENEW
messages. [STANDARDS TRACK]
This document is a product of the Dynamic Host Configuration
Working Group of the IETF.
This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.
STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs
Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.
The RFC Editor Team
USC/Information Sciences Institute
...
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 10 09:53:52 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2771F3A6862;
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fJMClF51+7We; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4316B3A67F9;
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9183B3A67D8
for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PqSRGq5JO+WJ for ;
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A173A67F9
for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159])
by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2008 17:03:59 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12])
by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m19M3xWk011359
for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:03:59 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com
[64.102.31.12])
by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m19M3uIS005796
for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:03:58 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by
xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:03:56 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([10.82.241.109]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:03:56 -0500
Message-Id:
From: Ralph Droms
To: DHC WG
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:03:55 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2008 22:03:56.0274 (UTC)
FILETIME=[AA487D20:01C86B67]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG scheduling for IETF 71
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
dhc WG is scheduled to meet Mon PM. Any conflicts?
MONDAY, March 10, 2008
1520-1720 Afternoon Session II
Breakout Room INT tictoc Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock
Breakout Room INT dhc Dynamic Host Configuration WG
Breakout Room OPS opsarea Operations & Management Area Open Meeting
Breakout Room RAI ecrit Emergency Context Resolution with Internet
Technologies WG
Breakout Room RTG forces Forwarding and Control Element Separation WG
Breakout Room RTG sidr Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
Breakout Room TSV ippm IP Performance Metrics WG
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 09:55:27 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E563A6D01;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-2.641, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hsAFnBkSym2o; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609893A6B9C;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAA83A695D
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id eDBi77T+j2MR for ;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300F33A694B
for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,334,1199692800";
d="scan'208";a="5585243"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195])
by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2008 09:56:49 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237])
by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1BHunsX031031;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:56:49 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com
[64.102.31.102])
by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1BHum61010963;
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:56:49 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:56:41 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([10.86.248.65]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:56:40 -0500
Message-Id: <1433AB3A-77A2-4B5F-9099-D6DAD862EFAF@cisco.com>
From: Ralph Droms
To: DHC WG
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:56:39 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2008 17:56:41.0226 (UTC)
FILETIME=[74BB4EA0:01C86CD7]
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: Dhc Chairs
Subject: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* agenda for IETF 72 dhc WG meeting
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Please contact dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org to request a slot or if we
missed your request.
- Ralph
DHC WG DRAFT agenda - IETF 71
1500-1520 2008-03-10 (Mon)
(Last revised 2008-02-11 12:45 PM ET)
-------------------------------------
Administrivia Brzozowski/Droms 15
minutes
Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe
Draft last call and adoption announcements
Virtual Subnet Selection Option K. Kinnear 10
minutes
Review merged draft
DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery M. Stapp 10
minutes
Review updated draft prior to WG last call
A relay agent DUID for DHCPv4 M. Stapp 10
minutes
Layer 2 Relay Agent Information B. Joshi 15
minutes
Review of informational document
Using DHCPv6 for Prefix Delegation in IEEE 802.16 Networks
F. Xia 15
minutes
Review protocol mechanisms for DHCP correctness and compatibility
Operational problems caused by inconsistent RA M/O flags
J. H. Cha 05
minutes
Kerberos server option for DHCPv6 S. Sakane 10
minutes
-----------
90
minutes
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 07:02:22 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11A728C2D5;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:02:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id xZGK4nYLcXUM; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCCA28CEF1;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:00:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 4E25628CEDD; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--NextPart
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
Title : DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery
Author(s) : M. Stapp
Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
Pages : 17
Date : 2008-02-11
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) has been
extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a client to request
information about DHCPv6 bindings. That mechanism is limited to
queries for individual bindings. In some situations individual
binding queries may not be efficient, or even possible. This
document specifies extensions to the Leasequery protocol that add new
query types and allow for bulk transfer of DHCPv6 binding data.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
access-type="mail-server";
server="mailserv@ietf.org"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-02-12064806.I-D@ietf.org>
ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
name="draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt";
site="ftp.ietf.org";
access-type="anon-ftp";
directory="internet-drafts"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-02-12064806.I-D\@ietf.org>
--OtherAccess--
--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--NextPart--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 07:14:52 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF01728C2C8;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id L-tShSmFub54; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5771F28C2CE;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7786228C13E
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PN1G9stk-ZBz for ;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801DA28C2D0
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159])
by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2008 10:15:37 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13])
by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1CFFatm023778
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:15:36 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com
[64.102.31.102])
by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1CFEvB4011716
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:15:36 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:15:25 -0500
Received: from [10.86.248.148] ([10.86.248.148]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:15:25 -0500
Message-ID: <47B1B80C.4060705@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:15:24 -0500
From: Mark Stapp
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg
References: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2008 15:15:25.0520 (UTC)
FILETIME=[17F97D00:01C86D8A]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=mjs@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hello all,
This is the first 'working-group' version of the dhcpv6 bulk leasequery
draft that we discussed at the vancouver ietf.
There aren't huge changes between the individual submission and this
version. I did add a brief section to cover the relationship between the
existing rfc5007 UDP leasequery and the new proposal. I also made a
variety of clarifications and cleanups that were suggested during a
couple of mailing-list threads. Thanks to everyone who offered
suggestions and corrections.
Please take a look and send comments to the list. I will be doing
another brief presentation at the philadelphia ietf meeting - I think
that's already on Ralph's proposed agenda.
Thanks,
Mark
Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> Title : DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery
> Author(s) : M. Stapp
> Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
> Pages : 17
> Date : 2008-02-11
>
> The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) has been
> extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a client to request
> information about DHCPv6 bindings. That mechanism is limited to
> queries for individual bindings. In some situations individual
> binding queries may not be efficient, or even possible. This
> document specifies extensions to the Leasequery protocol that add new
> query types and allow for bulk transfer of DHCPv6 binding data.
>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 08:27:32 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D526428CC84;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jKKz0N8zHhtK; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29D328C1EC;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1580128CBD3
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 5NmTilUA4Q2s for ;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hankinsfamily.info (the.hankinsfamily.info [204.152.186.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534EB28C1EA
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hcf.isc.org (dhcp-wi-40.sql1.isc.org [204.152.189.40])
(authenticated bits=0)
by hankinsfamily.info (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1CGSsYr015393
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:28:54 -0800
Received: by hcf.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10200)
id 101481F59D; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:28:53 -0800
From: "David W. Hankins"
To: DHC WG
Message-ID: <20080212162853.GA19956@isc.org>
References: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com>
<47B1B80C.4060705@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47B1B80C.4060705@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1311882993=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--===============1311882993==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1"
Content-Disposition: inline
--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:15:24AM -0500, Mark Stapp wrote:
> There aren't huge changes between the individual submission and this=20
> version. I did add a brief section to cover the relationship between the=
=20
The main technical debate about the individual submission centered
around handling of leasequery option codes that were bulk-query
specific; whether to emit errors, have some sort of 'more bit', just
drop the bogus kinds of packets, etc. Did you come to a conclusion
that made it into this draft?
--=20
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
--=20
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHsclFcXeLeWu2vmoRAuL7AJ9pgf7zfG18wMLiZAWkiHd3B3PDKwCeKJN3
MvxYuifTdww6iAztaomIQ2w=
=fNc6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--
--===============1311882993==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============1311882993==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 08:32:35 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7E828C310;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.440, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8b0JpSWhczKy; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910453A6E5B;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCDC28C1DE
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id qAiofInbuJlb for ;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE3A3A6E5B
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158])
by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2008 11:33:57 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12])
by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1CGXufD012259;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:33:56 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com
[64.102.31.12])
by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1CGXYaN012300;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:33:56 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by
xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:33:46 -0500
Received: from [10.86.248.148] ([10.86.248.148]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:33:45 -0500
Message-ID: <47B1CA6A.1090400@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:33:46 -0500
From: Mark Stapp
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "David W. Hankins"
References: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com> <47B1B80C.4060705@cisco.com>
<20080212162853.GA19956@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080212162853.GA19956@isc.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2008 16:33:45.0471 (UTC)
FILETIME=[095D18F0:01C86D95]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=mjs@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hi David,
yes: I've added text that says the bulk protocol can use the RFC5007
queries but not vice-versa. bulk lq servers should respond with the
NotAllowed status if a bulk query-type shows up in a UDP query message.
-- Mark
David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:15:24AM -0500, Mark Stapp wrote:
>> There aren't huge changes between the individual submission and this
>> version. I did add a brief section to cover the relationship between the
>
> The main technical debate about the individual submission centered
> around handling of leasequery option codes that were bulk-query
> specific; whether to emit errors, have some sort of 'more bit', just
> drop the bogus kinds of packets, etc. Did you come to a conclusion
> that made it into this draft?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 09:18:41 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE5C28C37D;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.560, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ax-2IUUbEcYI; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A353A6E73;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA963A6E73
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PoAfoQP7z9nB for ;
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hankinsfamily.info (the.hankinsfamily.info [204.152.186.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40AB3A6E79
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hcf.isc.org (dhcp-wi-40.sql1.isc.org [204.152.189.40])
(authenticated bits=0)
by hankinsfamily.info (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1CHK3Ck016993
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:20:03 -0800
Received: by hcf.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10200)
id DA36A4518F; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:20:02 -0800
From: "David W. Hankins"
To: DHC WG
Message-ID: <20080212172002.GE19956@isc.org>
References: <20080212150001.4E25628CEDD@core3.amsl.com>
<47B1B80C.4060705@cisco.com> <20080212162853.GA19956@isc.org>
<47B1CA6A.1090400@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47B1CA6A.1090400@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1793491137=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--===============1793491137==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DqhR8hV3EnoxUkKN"
Content-Disposition: inline
--DqhR8hV3EnoxUkKN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:46AM -0500, Mark Stapp wrote:
> yes: I've added text that says the bulk protocol can use the RFC5007=20
> queries but not vice-versa. bulk lq servers should respond with the=20
> NotAllowed status if a bulk query-type shows up in a UDP query message.
OK, I'll give it a read, thanks Mark.
--=20
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
--=20
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
--DqhR8hV3EnoxUkKN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHsdVCcXeLeWu2vmoRAoqhAKCpRqMy+IpqNmlqhcwXgwGC3z3kDwCeO8CF
df12NhY0bwcgLZDKtV0Yj+A=
=O7oI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--DqhR8hV3EnoxUkKN--
--===============1793491137==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--===============1793491137==--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 10:30:07 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861DF28C9A8;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PL6JuF9xpW5D; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0B928C9CA;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
id A584D28C916; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20080213183001.A584D28C916@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--NextPart
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Layer 2 Relay Agent Information
Author(s) : B. Joshi, P. Kurapati
Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
Pages : 19
Date : 2008-1-28
In some networks, DHCP servers rely on Relay Agent Information option
appended by Relay Agents for IP address and other parameter
assignment policies. This works fine when end hosts are directly
connected to Relay Agents. In some network configurations, one or
more Layer 2 devices may reside between DHCP clients and Relay agent.
In these network scenarios, it is difficult to use the Relay Agent
Information option for IP address and other parameter assignment
policies effectively. So there is a need for the device that is
closest to the end hosts to append Relay Agent Information option in
DHCP messages. These devices are typically known as Layer 2 Relay
Agents.
This document aims to describe the network scenarios where Layer 2
Relay Agent is in use and also how it handles DHCP messages.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
access-type="mail-server";
server="mailserv@ietf.org"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-2-13102645.I-D@ietf.org>
ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
name="draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt";
site="ftp.ietf.org";
access-type="anon-ftp";
directory="internet-drafts"
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2008-2-13102645.I-D@ietf.org>
--OtherAccess--
--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--NextPart--
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 14:31:35 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A859C3A6B33;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id gyHKR2a9wWj4; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978BF3A7051;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:31:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262453A6B51
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:31:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id kUk+eyMOmKec for ;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:30:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EC03A6B4D
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159])
by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2008 17:32:08 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13])
by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1DMW8Wk003090
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:32:08 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com
[64.102.31.12])
by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1DMVbQf001547
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:32:08 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:31:59 -0500
Received: from [10.82.232.36] ([10.82.232.36]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:31:58 -0500
Message-ID: <47B36FDD.90208@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:31:57 -0500
From: Mark Stapp
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2008 22:31:58.0823 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3ED01770:01C86E90]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=mjs@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Subject: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hello all,
I've posted a new draft defining a new v4 relay agent suboption. The
basic idea is to have a consistent place to convey an identifier for an
individual relay agent. I've tried to describe at least one concrete
use-case for this - in "Industrial Ethernet". It's short - really - so
please take a look and comment.
I believe that Ralph and John have allocated a slot in the agenda at the
Philadelphia meeting for me to go over the draft, and I hope to have
some discussion there too.
Thanks,
Mark
=============================
A new version of I-D, draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Mark Stapp and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id
Revision: 00
Title: The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption
Creation_date: 2008-02-13
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 6
Abstract:
This memo defines a new Relay Agent Identifier suboption for the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol's (DHCP) Relay Agent Information
option. The suboption carries a unique identifier configured or
generated at the relay agent. The suboption allows a DHCP relay
agent to include the unique identifier in the DHCP messages it sends.
The IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 20:57:20 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730CD28C8B8;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.572, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jWuxvzIBL1Ks; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630773A7022;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388A528C146
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id A68K0CQ5wH+4 for ;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kecgate06.infosys.com (kecgate06.infosysconsulting.com
[61.95.162.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC2E3A6B1F
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indhubbhs04.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.84]) by
kecgate06.infosys.com with InterScan Message Security Suite;
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:29:10 +0530
Received: from blrkechub04.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.44]) by
indhubbhs04.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:28:28 +0530
Received: from BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.21]) by
blrkechub04.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.44]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Feb 2008
10:28:28 +0530
From: pavan_kurapati
To: Mark Stapp , dhcwg
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:28:27 +0530
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00
Thread-Index: AchukKqu85hjedcTQv6I4GXAD9qoBgAMVtlU
Message-ID: <7221E17E68B1A944ADCE8A83364DBEE61467B606E1@BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com>
References: <47B36FDD.90208@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47B36FDD.90208@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2008 04:58:28.0561 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3CF94C10:01C86EC6]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Mark,
I do support the need to uniquely identify relay agent. But in your use case, I was wondering why cant we use 'giaddr' for this purpose as that should uniquely identify the relay agent in the domain. As of today, DHCP servers do not seem to store 'giaddr' in the lease file. But we need to modify the server to either store the relay-id or giaddr for this purpose.
BTW, we did find a need for a relay identifier sub-option in the case of Layer 2 Relay Agents where they do not set giaddr and append option 82. In this case a combination of circuit-id and giaddr (which is set by other Layer 3 Relay Agent) may not be unique. So this sub-option is useful for this scenario.
Thanks,
Pavan
________________________________________
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Stapp [mjs@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:01 AM
To: dhcwg
Subject: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00
Hello all,
I've posted a new draft defining a new v4 relay agent suboption. The
basic idea is to have a consistent place to convey an identifier for an
individual relay agent. I've tried to describe at least one concrete
use-case for this - in "Industrial Ethernet". It's short - really - so
please take a look and comment.
I believe that Ralph and John have allocated a slot in the agenda at the
Philadelphia meeting for me to go over the draft, and I hope to have
some discussion there too.
Thanks,
Mark
=============================
A new version of I-D, draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id-00.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Mark Stapp and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-stapp-dhc-relay-id
Revision: 00
Title: The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption
Creation_date: 2008-02-13
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 6
Abstract:
This memo defines a new Relay Agent Identifier suboption for the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol's (DHCP) Relay Agent Information
option. The suboption carries a unique identifier configured or
generated at the relay agent. The suboption allows a DHCP relay
agent to include the unique identifier in the DHCP messages it sends.
The IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
From dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 22:31:34 2008
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0C228CBA1;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, MIME error: error: illegal encoding [base64] for
MIME type message/external-body
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id nhTasUiC4DTl; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68DC28C954;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CDE28C948
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, MIME error: error: illegal encoding [base64] for
MIME type message/external-body
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id RXYewr9HRiUz for ;
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kecgate03.infosys.com (kecgate03.progeon.com [220.227.179.21])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29ABA3A68B2
for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.81]) by
Kecgate03.infosys.com with InterScan Message Security Suite;
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:14 +0530
Received: from blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.41]) by
indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:46 +0530
Received: from [10.10.11.146] (10.66.216.45) by blrkechub01.ad.infosys.com
(10.66.236.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.0.744.0; Thu, 14 Feb 2008
12:02:45 +0530
From: Bharat Joshi
To:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-RAOHi8aFQAah2040dWkK"
Organization: Infosys Technologies Ltd
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:50:11 +0530
Message-ID: <1202970011.12529.51.camel@magadha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2008 06:32:46.0375 (UTC)
FILETIME=[694B3370:01C86ED3]
Subject: [dhcwg] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
--=-RAOHi8aFQAah2040dWkK
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All,
We have submitted 'Layer 2 Relay Agent Information' draft as the DHC
Working Group document.
Based on the comments received on individual submission, a few
changes have been made in this document.
Please review this document and let us know your comments. If there
are some good comments, we can come out with another version before the
01th version deadline [25th Feb].
Thanks,
Bharat
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
--=-RAOHi8aFQAah2040dWkK
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: Forwarded message - [dhcwg] I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
Content-Type: message/rfc822
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com (192.168.200.81) by
blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id
8.0.744.0; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:05:33 +0530
Received: from Kecgate01.infosys.com ([61.95.162.75]) by
indhubbhs01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 14
Feb 2008 00:05:33 +0530
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by Kecgate01.infosys.com with
InterScan Message Security Suite; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:06:23 +0530
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 5113328CC51;Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id NzLbrTb+niv1; Wed, 13
Feb 2008 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by core3.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 6202728C9EA;Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0)id A584D28C916; Wed, 13
Feb 2008 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Internet-Drafts@ietf.org"
To: "i-d-announce@ietf.org"
CC: "dhcwg@ietf.org"
Sender: "dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org"
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:01 +0530
Subject: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-00.txt
Thread-Index: AchubzgCD5K0jMNkSk6wUTVOKh/sQw==
Message-ID: <20080213183001.A584D28C916@core3.amsl.com>
List-Help:
List-Subscribe:
,
List-Unsubscribe: