Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

[Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>]

See below.

- Bernie

> On Dec 26, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Bernie Volz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> If you want to report upstream, why not just relay the notification?
> 
> a) because often the local server actually needs to keep it's own database.
> 
There’s no reason the notification cannot be consumed both locally and forwarded. Obviously the forwarded request’s reply likely should be dropped if a locally generated reply is being sent - but that’s easy enough for relay to handle by adding something into the Interface ID option?

> b) because it might need to filter based upon which addresses are being
>   reported about.  For instance, filter out ULAs, but keep GUAs.
> 
No reason that device couldn’t filter out ones it doesn’t want to relay.

> c) it seems to me like the local server should perhaps be taking
> responsability for the delivery.
> 
That is perhaps the one benefit for not relaying (see a) but I guess you could change it so relayed Reply is delivered back to client (not local one). This mechanism isn’t expected to be perfect since it may be a while before clients even add the support (and some may never).

> but, I agree that relaying upstream might be the better solution.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
>