Re: recommendation on DHCP6 source port numbers

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > David, I can see that argument. But we also didn't think randomized
    > source ports were going to be important for DNS... I guess I don't see
    > why we should be declaring what an implementer does on the source port

We expect DNS messages to leave the "enterprise" (site) and get returned to
us.  We require it for DNS to work.  It's the whole point.
Yes, there was a point in the past where many DNS requests were *from* port-53.

DHCPv6: not so. Just the opposite.
OpenWRT actually blocks port 546/547 from being accepted on the wan
interface, unless it's LL. (zone_wan_input)
If DHCPv6 leaves the local link, it's because there is a DHCP relay configured.

So I feel confident that we will NEVER need clients to port randomized
source ports.  We *might* decide that there is some scenario where we want a
DHCPv6 *RELAY* to do something like that, but I'll bet we won't do that
without a DTLS or IPsec wrapper.


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFKBAEBCgA0FiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmXhKVUWHG1jcitpZXRm
QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZXj1B/4+s7udRnMytmaiyBbKj7/xl4ak
laU5oPOVz5ZDT5UU2grblr1foyFgimbaB9KMnYFxvsHc72Qit41JxoqWAeVwvywo
l4QIj9kw8nWsWMcyT/3Rxr5DbEQd/s/8pz2V5FoTMZFUPy09KWRLl52MlS+OS02W
03FoisLmvdiaL8WjB6vdpH5Kk1saHgHZCj/+yHrX7Q2PuG+dCbc3UCRKczuY4F8z
FU3tCKrKS2BxUiwjO5xdpt9QrC3a8DYIpaNoHKl1Kbj3Xqf4IhezqCOFFfRT+d5e
F2v5Z5RgoB1pYJKaW1DloLP71F1wx/Qu7nLhaV5puCRw9Lxn4U4/1htqAfmB
=J0rE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----