Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 03/03/2014 11:01, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
> ...rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router...
>
> Ole - I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use
> client, relay and server.

In a sense yes, I also agree with this, the discussion would be easier
if we just had Client, Relay and Server.

But I have a doubt about other RFCs using Requesting Router and
Delegating Router? (e.g. RFC6276 Prefix Delegation for NEMO, the queued
draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-14, and others).  People reading these may no
longer understand them.

Alex

>
> I support this point. In the scenarios of DHCPv6-PD,
>
> a.  the DHCPv6 server has not always to be a router; b.  the CE
> router can be both a requesting router for requesting a prefix in
> IA_PD, and a client for requesting an address in IA_NA; in fact,
> they use the same message from the same function module, but are in
> different options.
>
>
> Best Regards, Leaf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan Sent: Monday,
> March 03, 2014 9:29 AM To: DHC WG Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms) Subject:
> [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
>
> just a perspective on naming and at the risk of bike shedding.
>
> rfc3315 uses client, relay, server rfc3633 requesting router and
> delegating router
>
> rfc3633 was written with the expectation that there was no relay,
> this was for the purpose of route injection. actual deployments use
> relays, and there isn't any special function done on the delegating
> router, and no need to have a special name for it.
>
> in 3315bis with prefix delegation being integrated fully into the
> main DHCP RFC, I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms.
> just use client, relay and server.
>
> cheers, Ole
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>