RE: [dhcwg] comments L2 Relay Agent Information

[Bharat Joshi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stefaan,

    Thanks for your comments. Please see my response in line.

Thanks,
Bharat

> 1) section 4.1.1 in point 3 and 6 says that the L2 relay agent looks to
> the broadcast flag to see if has to broadcast or to unicast.  Is this
> not the task of the DHCP server or L3 relay agent?  Would there be any
> reason why the L2 relay agent should also inspect the broadcast flag?
> Is it not enough that the L2 relay agent just looks to the destination
> MAC address?
>

Yes. You are correct. A L2 RA would not need to look at the broadcast flag at all. We shall correct this in our next revision.

> 2) point 3 in 4.1.1 says that the L2 relay agent removes the relay agent
> information option.  As far as I know, this is not mandatory for L3
> relay agents (and I have seen implementations that do not remove it), so
>   should it for L2 relay agents also not be something optional?

As per RFC 3046 whoever has added relay agent information option MUST remove it.

Section 2.1 of RFC 3046:

The Relay Agent Information option echoed by a server MUST be removed by either the relay agent or the trusted downstream network element which added it when forwarding a server-to-client response back to the client.

> 3) point 4 in 4.1.1: A L2 relay agent uses the RAI to find out if it has
> appended the RAI or not.  There is not really a requirement that the
> content of the RAI must be unique per access link network-wide.  For
> instance, if the circuit-id contains a string indicating the slot and
> port number of the link, then the same circuit-id can be used by
> multiple L2 relay agents.  The DSL Forum has solved this by adding a
> DSLAM-ID to the string of the suboptions of the RAI in their suggested
> format of the string.  It would be therefore better to add the word
> "usually" just like it is done in 3 and 6 where the L2RA "usually" find
> the outgoing port based on the RAI, because there are other means as well.
>

Yes. Adding 'Usually' will be helpful. After re-reading it, I think we need to update it.

> 4) Section 4.3.2, point 1: this is not really a new issue when there is
> a L3 relay agent and is already mentioned in 4.1.2.

Yes. They are essentially same but we just wanted to keep it at both the places. It just shows that if a L3 RA does not snoop a unicast message, DHCP server should echo back the option 82.

> Some typos:
> - section 3, point 1: position instead of postion
> - I do not understand 3rd sentence in section 3, point 2: "This helps in
> preventing the Layer 2 and Layer 3...."
> - section 4.3 line 3: "...its seen.." -> "...it is seen..."
>

Will fix all of them in next revision.

**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg