Re: [dhcwg] Questions about layer two relay agents in dhcpv4...

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Josh Littlefield wrote:
> I do think this is a problem. TR-101, in which I participated in
> defining the L2RA requirements for EtherDSL, specifically requires the
> L2RA to remove option-82 from all packets:
>  [...]

Yes.

This is complicated by the fact that the l2ra draft is informational, not standards-track.   So essentially it just reports what people are doing with regards to l2ra, rather than specifying how to do l2ra.  I'm finding myself adding text to the relay agent encapsulation draft specifying how to do l2ra because of this.

Personally, I'd like to see the l2ra draft aimed at standards track, and specifying the correct way to do l2ra, rather than, as it does now, simply documenting various implementation strategies, some of which are clearly (to me!) broken.

I'm curious to know what the authors of the current draft think about this.   I'm pretty sure we've talked about this before, so I apologize for re-visiting well-trod ground, but I'm seeing the problem with new eyes now... :'}