IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use Interface-ID option

"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> Sun, 15 October 2006 14:44 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZ7EB-0003Vp-RF; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZ7EA-0003QJ-Ig for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:34 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZ7E8-00024d-8n for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:34 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2006 10:44:32 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9FEiVcK022075; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:31 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9FEiUYJ014108; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:30 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use Interface-ID option
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:44:29 -0400
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB21024E9C61@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use Interface-ID option
Thread-Index: AcbpGwKnMFfb3hMkQl6cENdOpHP1eAHTPgCQ
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2006 14:44:30.0226 (UTC) FILETIME=[6BC95720:01C6F068]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2412; t=1160923471; x=1161787471; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=22Bernie=20Volz=20\(volz\)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20[Question]=20When=20should=20we=20use=20Interface-ID=2 0option |To:<Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com>,=20<dhcwg@ietf.org>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DMu9k7cosSfnNF1vTpJEvGb/Quzs=3D; b=x94YUudYbfyArQTzPQLauiWQctqOKPWmKKihlzi6paMAvLU6GN7KCnSfQYwOmLP1GGuPvTLj NAyNwAEnX9Wy7tT+77m5DSaVO3GnD0Rv9QjzQ6QNtxWgWe3+5g18u7ih;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc:
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

Hideshi:

If a relay agent (which is a router) terminates a bunch of circuits, it
may well be that each of those circuits does not have their own unique
prefix (and hence a link-addess field that can be used). For example, a
relay may have one global address for all of these circuits.

In such a case, the relay must know on which circuit to relay any
replies from a server, and hence the interface-id can be used.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com
[mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:43 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use Interface-ID option

Hi all,

I have a question regarding Interface-ID option in DHCPv6.

RFC3315 defines Interface-ID option, 
but I cannot understand in what situation this option should be used. 

RFC3315 20.1.1 says,
----------
(snip)
   If the relay agent cannot use the address in the link-address field
   to identify the interface through which the response to the client
   will be relayed, the relay agent MUST include an Interface-id option
   (see section 22.18)
(snip)
----------

I cannot imagine above sentence situation.
I mean that I can't think up the situation("Relay agent cannot use the
address 
in the link-address field to identify the interface")

Someone, please teach me the situation that Relay agent should use
Interface-ID option in detail.

Moreover, I can't understand actual meaning of following statement.
#I feel the RFC is unclear regarding Interface-id option usage.
--------------
20.1.1. Relaying a Message from a Client
   (snip)	
 
                                                                     The
   relay agent fills in the link-address field as described in the
   previous paragraph regardless of whether the relay agent includes an
   Interface-id option in the Relay-forward message.
---------------
In this statement, when a Relay agent includes an Interface-id option,
what should the Relay agent fill in the link-address field?

What do you think?

Best Regards,

*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email