Re: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Sat, 22 September 2001 03:54 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 XAA12853; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02905; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02878 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12843 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA31537; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:51:10 -0400
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
Cc: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field
In-Reply-To: <004401c14266$06810260$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010921234841.16329A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

Vijay,

I am not clear why you can't tell the alias.  This will be a function of
the scoping code for IPv6 as the interface in your example is using
scoping (your aliases) and that is code that would have to be part of the
base IPv6 stack to return from the API index routines?

I am not clear this is a dhcp problem but an IPv6 implementation problem
in general we all are working on now?

Maybe I am missing your issue though?

thanks


/jim


On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Vijay Bhaskar A K wrote:

> The latest draft on DHCPv6 says that, the client sends the
> request to All Agents multicast address. The Agents put its
> own address of the interface in which the client packet is
> recieved, in the Relay-forward packet.
> 
> Assume the configuration one of the interface of the Agent is as follows.
> 
> lan0   -  A link local address
> lan0:1 -  A site local address
> lan0:2 -  A gloabal address
> 
> Assume the packet is received from the client in the lan0 interface of the
> agent.
> Using our latest IPv6 APIs, we can identify this.
> But, we CANT identify at what alias interface ( lan0 or lan0:1 or lan0:2)
> in which the packet is received.
> 
> Here the problem is, the relay cannot put its own link local address
> in the relay address field in the relay forward packet, since this
> info is useless.
> 
> The question, SHOULD the relay put the address in lan0:1 (site local
> address) or lan0:2 (global address)in the relay address field?
> The DECISION of the relay is very important that depending up on the
> address it is sending the relay address field only, the server can
> allocate address to the client. Is there any solution to this
> problem?
> ~Vijay
> 
> 
> 
> ____Vijay_Bhaskar_A_K____
> ______Inet_Services______
> ________HP_ISO___________
> _____Phone:_2051424______
> ___Pager:_9624_371137____
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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