RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header

I am working through this document, but I had the same thought as I was reviewing it.

If the relay-address and source IP address of the relay are the same, there is no reason
to have both. Most relays should be able to do this, so it will hopefully be the exception
to the rule that this information is needed. This will require changes to section 12 and
likely other places.

Also, while I'm at it, 9.1 and 9.2 still have the "prefix-length" field defined by this
field no longer exists within the Relay-Forw and Relay-Repl messages.

In 13.4.2, it says "and copies the values of the transaction-ID field ...". All that is
now copied is the transaction-id so just say "value". Perhaps best to just say "copies
the transaction-id field".

In 13.4.2, as "The server MAY include other options", do these other options include
IA IDs (and related suboptions that are still being worked out) that the server might
know about for the client? In other words, might we allow a server to send back all
of the IA IDs (and addresses) it knows about a client in the Solicit. (Perhaps best to
wait to answer this based on what Mark, Ted, and I work out!)

I haven't finished the rest of the document so I may have more comments later.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@nominum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:49 AM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from
the DHCPv6 header 

How about making relay-address an option?   I don't think it will be
useful in most cases, so it seems like a drag to have it part of the
fixed header.

			       _MelloN_

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