Re: [dhcwg] Interface

Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com> Thu, 11 October 2001 20:26 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 QAA24488; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:26:05 -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 QAA20603; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20580 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24475 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:25:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18287; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:24:53 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from lillen (vpn133-11.EBay.Sun.COM [129.150.133.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with SMTP id f9BKP0q08468; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:25:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:19:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Interface
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <4.3.2.7.2.20011010173146.00bb4d80@funnel.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1002831587.13330.nordmark@bebop.france>
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

> The client MUST send the message on an interface that will cause
> the message to be delivered to the agent through the link to which
> the interface the client is trying to obtain configuration
> information for is attached.  The client SHOULD send the
> message through the interface for which the client is trying to
> obtain configuration information.  The client MAY send the message
> through another interface if the client has multiple interfaces
> on the same link.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say.

I think it might make sense to make the last sentence stronger by
saying
 The client MAY send the message
 through another interface attached to the same link if and only if the client
 is certain that the two interfaces are attached to the same link.

  Erik


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