IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01

perl-list <perl-list@network1.net> Thu, 16 August 2012 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dankney@network1.net>
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 874CD21F847F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ogrsXl2YHaJm for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (zimbra.network1.net [74.115.181.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AF021F847D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.network1.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.network1.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5C4541104; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:05:05 -0400
From: perl-list <perl-list@network1.net>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <1810312575.126096.1345140305786.JavaMail.root@network1.net>
In-Reply-To: <638607D0-D89C-4ED6-A3BF-FF2DECBF4D47@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_126095_1285250243.1345140305785"
X-Originating-IP: [74.115.182.5]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0_GA_2669 (ZimbraWebClient - GC21 (Mac)/7.2.0_GA_2669)
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:05:12 -0000

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
> To: "perl-list" <perl-list@network1.net>
> Cc: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>, "dhc WG"
> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:53:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC:
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01

> On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:51 PM, perl-list wrote:
> > Some of your other comments got me to thinking, however... On
> > DHCPv4,
> > the client may start communicating directly with the DHCP server
> > ignoring the relay agent for renews (no idea if it is supposed to
> > do
> > that, but some do). Is this the case in DHCPv6? Is it possible for
> > the client to ignore the relay agent and communicate directly with
> > the DHCPv6 server on rebind? If so, then this solution will only
> > sort of work...
> 
> The client isn't allowed to do this unless it negotiates it with the
> server, which presumably would say no in any environment where the
> client-link-layer-address option was used. This was a deliberate
> design decision in RFC3315, to deal with the exact problem you are
> talking about.

Thank you, designers, for that!! Very irritating in the DHCPv4 space.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status