Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 30 August 2001 23:12 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 TAA29946; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:12:37 -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 TAA14116; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:12:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14053 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29853 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl081-147-128.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.147.128]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7UN65f16138; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7UNBlf00374; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108302311.f7UNBlf00374@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
cc: "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:10:42 CDT." <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC697B34DE@eambunt705.ena-east.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:11:47 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
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

> Therefore, I would suggest it can either be the prefix (with 0's in
> the interface id) or just an address. Since the server knows the
> prefix lengths, it can find the appropriate "network" by doing the
> checks only against the prefix-length bits. Essentially, only the
> prefix bits are significant and the remaining bits are don't
> care. But, I have no major issue if we want to force it to be just
> the prefix (with 0's in the other bits).

If we force it to be just the prefix, the relay has to know the length
of the prefix in order to figure out what it is, right?   :')

Anyway, I think your loose interpretation is fine - any address in the
subnet's range should be fine, including the prefix+all zeros address.
The point is that it is semantically *not* the address to which the
reply goes.

			       _MelloN_

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