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

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 30 August 2001 15:18 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 LAA19395; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:18:35 -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 LAA00574; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00555 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:16:11 -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 LAA19337 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:14:51 -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 f7UFAKf15565; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:10:20 -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 f7UFG6l00557; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108301516.f7UFG6l00557@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from the DHCPv6 header
In-Reply-To: Message from Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:58:18 EDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20010830104633.03d33f08@funnel.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:16:06 -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

> This proposal still overloads the identification of the link
> on which the relay forward the Reply to the client with the
> selection of an address for the client by the server.  We
> could either add a separate field for specifying a prefix
> for address selection or define an option (like the DHCPv4
> subnet selection option).  I would be inclined to define
> an option that might be used by either a client or a
> relay (or both?). 

Sounds reasonable.

			       _MelloN_

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