Archive

> "Bernie Volz (EUD)" wrote:
> 
> Yeah, in thinking some more about this, perhaps it is better that the
> relay
> doesn't know about prefix lengths (it doesn't really need to) - though it
> likely will anyway (because of Router Advertisements, etc).
> 
> It also is one more thing that could get misconfigured in some way between
> 
> the relay and server, so perhaps best to just let the server deal with it.

I agree.  I think having the relay include the prefix length is almost
over-specifying the subnet to the server.  The server had its configuration
of subnets, and the relay needs only to provide an address within a subnet. 
Then the address either maps to a subnet, or it doesn't.  But it won't run
the risk of mapping to more than one if the relay-communicated prefix length
is smaller than expected).

> Therefore, I would suggest it can either be the prefix (with 0's in the
> interface
> id) or just an address. Since the server knows the prefix lengths, it can
> find
> the appropriate "network" by doing the checks only against the
> prefix-length
> bits. Essentially, only the prefix bits are significant and the remaining
> bits
> are don't care. But, I have no major issue if we want to force it to be
> just
> the prefix (with 0's in the other bits).

This is what I was trying to get at before.  The relay-address can be a full
address, or a "prefix-only" address (0's in the other bits) and the server
shouldn't care one way or the other as long as it maps to a subnet and isn't
used to address packets.  I see no reason to force the relay-address to be
prefix-only, or to disallow it.

-- 
=====================================================================
Josh Littlefield                                  Cisco Systems, Inc.
joshl@cisco.com                                      250 Apollo Drive
tel: 978-244-8378  fax: same               Chelmsford, MA  01824-3627

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

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