Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

["Leaf Yeh" <[e-mail]>]

...rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router...

Ole - I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

I support this point. In the scenarios of DHCPv6-PD,

a.  the DHCPv6 server has not always to be a router;
b.  the CE router can be both a requesting router for requesting a prefix in
IA_PD, and a client for requesting an address in IA_NA; in fact, they use
the same message from the same function module, but are in different
options.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:29 AM
To: DHC WG
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

just a perspective on naming and at the risk of bike shedding.

rfc3315 uses client, relay, server
rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router

rfc3633 was written with the expectation that there was no relay, this was
for the purpose of route injection.
actual deployments use relays, and there isn't any special function done on
the delegating router, and no need to have a special name for it.

in 3315bis with prefix delegation being integrated fully into the main DHCP
RFC, I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

cheers,
Ole