Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft

Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 16:15 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14297 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:15:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA02526 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:15:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02355; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:08:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02334 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:08:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlrel6.hp.com (atlrel6.hp.com [156.153.255.205]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13978 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:08:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dce.india.hp.com (dce.india.hp.com [15.10.45.122]) by atlrel6.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3742260030D; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vijayak@localhost) by dce.india.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id VAA03234; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:41:11 +0530 (IST)
From: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <200201231611.VAA03234@dce.india.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
To: Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:41:10 +0530 (IST)
Cc: vijayak@india.hp.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CDC9@EAMBUNT705> from Bernie Volz at Jan "21, " 2002 "01:28:33" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.2 $]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> VB3> Here, i have another doubt. Assume the following scenario. 
> Assume the Relay agent has addresses from two prefix A and B
> in the link attached to the client. Client has some addresses of
> prefix A. It has  been rebooted now. So, it sends the confirm packet.
> The confirm is received in the relay agent's interface. Now, what 
> prefix it has to put in the link-address field. If it chooses to put B,
> then the addresses assigned to client becomes invalid. In what 
> basis, the Relay agent chooses the prefixes, if the interface
> attached to the client's link has more than one prefixes?
>  
> BV4> You have misconfigured your DHCP environment. Fix the configuration so that either
> the relay always supplies the correct prefix or configure the DHCPv6 server to know about
> both prefixes.
>

No, both the server and relay  knows  about both  prefixes A and B.  The
problem here is, choosing the prefix.  If the relay's  link  attached to
the  client has both the  prefixes,  the what will the relay  choose?  I
feel like, here the subnet  selection option is really needed.  This can
be useful in two ways.

i) the client can says its prefered prefix in the SOLICIT/REQUEST message.
ii) it can say  about  the  prefix  it was  allocated  to it in  Confirm
meessage.  This  prefix  (say  3ffe::/64)  will  be  compared  with  the
prefixes in the relay's  link  attached to the client.  If the relay has
addresses  with 2 prefixes  3ffe::/64  and  5ffe::/64  in the  interface
attached to client's link, then it puts the  link-address  as 3ffe::/64.
This info will be used by server to check whether the client  resides in
the valid link.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg