RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option
"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 25 October 2004 17:20 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15421 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CM8jZ-0003IP-W2 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:34:18 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CM8Ra-0006cQ-LY; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:15:42 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CM8O4-0005Wu-Vj for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:12:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14737 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CM8bY-00037Z-HP for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:26:01 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2004 13:11:33 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9PHBS7K024502; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-2-248.cisco.com [10.86.242.248]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AMN59909; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: 'Wing Cheong Lau' <lau@qualcomm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:27 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <003501c4bab5$aa200a90$6501a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20041025092643.040c8e10@qcmail1.qualcomm.com>
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: dae47ebd0d959deee2d6f67621ddb2e3
Cc: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, rdroms@cisco.com
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1866488297=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6ce9c9805f9fd7f2a8e6eb8268c6b0fc
Great, I have no objection to your suggested name other than it is rather long - perhaps it will become known as OPTION_RRA. Are you or Ralph going to discuss this at the upcoming DHC WG session and request it become a WG work item? BTW, we don't need a DHCPv6 version of draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-suboption-00.txt because the existing DHCPv6 Vendor options can be used by the Relay Agent just fine. Again, it is WHERE these options appear that indicates whether they are for the client (in the client part of the message) or the relay, in the Relay-Forw or Relay-Reply part of the message. That work is already done and is not needed!! - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Wing Cheong Lau [mailto:lau@qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:50 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com; rdroms@cisco.com; volz@cisco.com Subject: Fwd: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option Dear Bernie and Ted, Thanks for your suggestion. My response is interlaced below. X-BrightmailFiltered: true From: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> To: "'Wing Cheong Lau'" <lau@qualcomm.com>, <dhcwg@ietf.org> Cc: "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:41:17 -0400 Organization: Cisco X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-PMX-Version: 4.6.0.99824, Antispam-Core: 4.6.0.97340, Antispam-Data: 2004.10.22.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2004 21:42:20.0795 (UTC) FILETIME=[025954B0:01C4B880] A very basic question ... why have a Relay Agent Information option and have sub-options inside this? And, especially 8-bit suboptions. It seems to me that with the larger 16-bit DHCPv6 option space, we'd just define an option to carry the "Radius Attributes" instead of placing this under a general "Relay Agent" option. The context of the message is pretty clear -- if it is from the relay, it can only be in a Relay-Forw (and Relay-Reply) message option area. There's also another advantage to this. Take the DHCPv4 subnet-selection option - there are two forms of this, one in for the relay agent and another for the client. This won't be necessary in DHCPv6 as the LOCATION of the message (either in the Client's Solicit, Request, ... or in a Relay-Forw/Relay-Reply) tells us who added it and which we'd prefer to use. This means only ONE option number is needed. So, I'd much rather see this specify a base option, OPTION-RADIUS-ATTRIBUTES, and have this contain the Radius attributes in the standard Radius encoding. So, it is just 16-bit option code, 16-bit length, followed by the radius encoding (as 8-bit suboptions). You can then specify that OPTION-RADIUS-ATTRIBUTES can only appear in the Relay-Forw (and Relay-Reply) message and MUST NOT appear in client messages themselves. - Bernie The original intent of specifying the sub-option was to try to simplify the definition of other sub-options in the future, e.g. the DHCPv6 version of draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-suboption-00.txt and to save a byte of so if the relay needs to include multiple sub-options at the same time. On 2nd thought, this "uncommon case" may not worth the complexity. Your suggestion looks cleaner. Also, the use of 16-bit instead of 8-bit length field can eliminate the 255-byte length limit of RADIUS attributes to be included. I will make it a single-level option according your suggestion in the next revision. About the naming of the option, how about "OPTION-RELAYED-RADIUS-ATTRIBUTES" instead of "OPTION-RADIUS-ATTRIBUTES" ? This is to highlight the nature of this option, i.e. being inserted by the Relay Agent. Thanks again. Regards, Wing -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wing Cheong Lau Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:45 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option Dear all, We have submitted a new draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option last week. It's already available from the ietf site http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-droms-dhc-v6-relayopt-00.txt but I have not seen the official announcement so far. The draft basically carries over similar capabilities, namely, RFC 3046 and draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-08.txt from DHCPv4 to DHCPv6, with initial use cases targetting for the 3GPP2 environment. Comments are welcome. Regards, Wing Abstract This document introduces the capabilities of the DHCPv4 Relay Agent Information Option in RFC 3046 and the corresponding RADIUS- Attributes Sub-option to DHCPv6. In particular, the document describes a new DHCPv6 option called the Relay Agent Information option which extends the set of DHCPv6 options as defined in RFC 3315 and 3376. Following its DHCPv4 counterpart as defined in RFC 3046, the new option is inserted by the DHCPv6 relay agent when forwarding client-originated DHCPv6 packets to a DHCPv6 server. Servers recognizing the Relay Agent Information option may use the information to implement IP address or other parameter assignment policies. The DHCP Server echoes the option back verbatim to the relay agent in server-to-client replies, and the relay agent strips the option before forwarding the reply to the client. The Relay Agent Information option is organized as a single DHCPv6 option that contains one or more "sub-options" that convey information known by the relay agent. A RADIUS Attributes Sub-option, following its DHCPv4 counterpart, is also defined. >Ted: > >Not sure what you're referring to. > >A relay would normally take a client message and place it into a Relay-Forw >with a Relay Message option containing the client's message. It can also add >any other options that it wants (and are allowed). In the base spec, this >might include an Interface-ID option, for example. And, why I suggested was >that this new I-D just define a "Radius Attribute" option which the Relay >Agent would add into the Relay-Forw message. >- Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@nominum.com] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:18 PM > To: Bernie Volz > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; 'Ralph Droms'; 'Wing Cheong Lau' > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information > Option and RADIUS Attributes sub-option > > > Er, furthermore there's already a relay encapsulation method > defined in > the base DHCPv6 specification. >
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Opt… Wing Cheong Lau
- RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information… Ted Lemon
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Bernie Volz
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Wing Cheong Lau
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Wing Cheong Lau
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Bernie Volz
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Kuntal Chowdhury
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Wing Cheong Lau
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Kuntal Chowdhury
- RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Informa… Wing Cheong Lau