Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02549; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA08309; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA08280 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [12.34.240.68]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02393 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7att.ericy.com [138.85.92.15]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f7TGLA507637 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:21:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from eamrcnt749 (eamrcnt749.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.47]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f7TGLAF05164 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:21:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: FROM eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se BY eamrcnt749 ; Wed Aug 29 11:20:15 2001 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:20:15 -0500 Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC697B34BE@eambunt705.ena-east.ericsson.se> From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" To: "'Ted Lemon'" , Ralph Droms Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:20:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C130A6.7B3F60A0" Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C130A6.7B3F60A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C130A6.7B3F60A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [dhcwg] Changes to remove = "client-link-local-address" from the 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=

------_=_NextPart_001_01C130A6.7B3F60A0-- _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg