Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Wed, 25 September 2013 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810311E80E0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhKEdgyh-Y6k for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x22e.google.com (mail-ea0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B498A11E8113 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z15so64839ead.5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fYIhfI7WKuHgfKsARNuUE15jPxYeHrvgiaodAIeY4Eo=; b=qdR1rDdHo3tX4BxILueyq3doZdqwmfrReUU5JXW+huHZoYXyd9maBYwHwmFOtg9WC6 lwWKwbePnoD5mglbsydLDFK92feZfQkC5JruoK8aqR5J7qkb0xP04Gla1qrVX0gd6m8B fNUkP0HVDF4jBltRo8HqghM+U1aZkIdWXzypG8jJvq42Fji83c7NAb2kOVtahQxlrSiE kczgKSrA3DkSsT6Dkv2yquGPVjaAz6V2kIZo7B+3VHKl0ZVupAHjyxXTv3llGv7h40nM 0GtKCqIsCL5J0UOS8cOplfvkWEw/zeBoKa0c01Og8R5LEWnkLs3IOLMR1L8n/vHTNzcu K0lA==
X-Received: by 10.15.42.70 with SMTP id t46mr5665098eev.58.1380138005844; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n48sm69096884eeg.17.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52433C10.4010403@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:40:00 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>, <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org> <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com> <52306010.4090001@gmail.com> <5E91E9B8-6E22-46DD-A687-B4983BD0B508@gmail.com> <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com> <52402AF3.8010407@gmail.com> <5240486E.20501@gmail.com> <52405701.9070506@gmail.com> <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com> <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com> <5241b722.c467440a.7dd8.ffff8e3c@mx.google.com> <5241C0B6.9040200@gmail.com> <52428618.21ab440a.16d7.62d5@mx.google.com> <5242C892.4020008@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5242C892.4020008@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20130925214000027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:40:07 -0000

On 25.09.2013 13:27, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> I am not sure there exists a term 'DHCPv6 Requestor' as depicted below.
This term is defined in RFC5007. DHCPv6 Requestor is an entity that
sends leasequery requests and processes leasequery responses. While
typically that is a part of relay agent software that recover client
info after relay reboot, it doesn't have to be. From the protocol
perspective, a requestor is a separate entity.

There are stand-alone implementations that offer leasequery requestor
functionality, without being relays.

Tomek