RE: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field

"Vijay Bhaskar A K" <vijayak@india.hp.com> Tue, 25 September 2001 15:46 UTC

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 LAA07029; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:46:44 -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 LAA12429; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:45:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12397 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from palrel11.hp.com (palrel11.hp.com [156.153.255.246]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07003 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hpuxsrv.india.hp.com (hpuxsrv.india.hp.com [15.10.45.132]) by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8721F555 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nt4147 (nt4147.india.hp.com [15.10.41.47]) by hpuxsrv.india.hp.com with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id VAA19483 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:10:59 +0530 (IST)
Reply-To: <vijayak@india.hp.com>
From: "Vijay Bhaskar A K" <vijayak@india.hp.com>
To: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:14:23 +0530
Message-ID: <001d01c145d8$f35019d0$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-reply-to: <001c01c145d8$5c877c00$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org]On 
> Behalf Of Bernie
> Volz (EUD)
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:17 PM
> To: 'Jim Bound'; Anil Kumar Reddy. S
> Cc: Dhcwg (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field
> 
> 
> Note that recent changes for the -20 text address this in two ways:
> 1) The address given to the server is used to determine the 
> link on which
> the client is located. This really (IMHO) should be a global 
> address. But, I
> would recommend that relay implementors allow this to be set 
> for a link (as
> to which address should be used). By default, I agree with 
> Jim - use the/a
> global address.

The question here is,
a) If there are two global addresses of different subnet
prefix in that interface, what address it has to choose?
b) If there is no global address in that interface, can 
the relay choose a site-local address?

> 2) If a relay needs specific information that it cannot 
> communicate simply
> by supplying the address, we have added a relay option where 
> it can pass the
> server anything it wants to use to identify how the relay 
> needs to return
> the packet to the client. This information is sent back by 
> the server in the
> Relay-Reply.
> And, as Jim commented, this isn't really just a DHCP issue - 
> it is more of a
> network issue in general. But if a particular implementation 
> has a way to
> solve it, DHCPv6 is OK because it can be used to pass it on 
> (such that the
> relay can return the reply).
> - Bernie Volz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bound [mailto:seamus@bit-net.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: Anil Kumar Reddy. S
> Cc: Dhcwg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field
> 
> 
> Anil,
> OK I get it.  Multiple issues here and they are not dhcp 
> issues though.
> We in dhcp must assume you can get the interface address it came in on
> within an IPv6 implementation and thats not our job here to 
> work that. But
> let me try to suggest how I would do it.
> First assume you can get the interface index from 2292-bis or 
> you do it on
> your implementation via some other means (sysctl/ioctl).  You 
> then do an
> if_nameindex() call to get all interface names from the base 
> api not the
> advanced api.
> 4.3 Return All Interface Names and Indexes
> The if_nameindex structure holds the information about a single
> interface and is defined as a result of including the 
> <net/if.h> header.
>    struct if_nameindex {
>      unsigned int   if_index;  /* 1, 2, ... */
>      char          *if_name;   /* null terminated name: "le0", ... */
>    };
> The final function returns an array of if_nameindex structures, one
> structure per interface.
>    struct if_nameindex  *if_nameindex(void);
> Then we would need to call our implementation defined 
> functions to return
> each address for each interface name.
> At this point the relay needs to use the proper scoping to get to the
> server.  Because we are embedding the address in the 
> relay-forward option
> we must do what IPv6 will do with source address selection 
> for sending IP
> packets in general which is select the proper scope for the 
> relay-address.
> I would argue until IPv6 scoping is more widely implemented 
> and its not
> even been tested at our bake-offs for interoperability just 
> yet the relay
> needs to configure a table for each interface at its node and 
> depending on
> the scope of the server IP dst address select the best 
> relay-address for
> that interface.  The default should be a global address for 
> each address
> interface at the relay.
> The other thing we can do is add to 2292-bis or build draft 
> in ipng for
> extensiion to the base api to return all addresses to 
> if_nameindex(). The
> base API is frozen and in the IEEE becoming standard now. So we cannot
> change that now or break existing production implementations.
> But I do not think this systems programming implementation 
> issue should
> affect the dhcp ipv6 standard at all and we should move 
> forward. This is
> an API issue again not dhcpv6 protocol issue.
> And we can all make this work.
> My input to you.
> /jim
> 
> 
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Anil Kumar Reddy. S wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> >     As per IPv6 rfc2292bis (draft), through the socket option
> IPV6_RECVPKTINFO
> >     we can get the index of the interface through which the 
> client packet
> is
> >     received. But the index will be same for all aliases and the
> >     primary address of the interface. So, if we get the 
> interface index
> >     and try to get the address of that, then we get the 
> link local address
> only
> >
> >     because the primary address of an interface is always 
> link local.
> >     (  Hope, I am clear in explaining   ;-))  )
> >
> >     In this case, how the relay is expected to work, when 
> an interface
> >     is configured with the addresses given by Vijay ?? 
> Which address it
> has
> >     to consider ??
> >
> > - Anil
> >
> > Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > > Vijay,
> > >
> > > I am not clear why you can't tell the alias.  This will 
> be a function of
> > > the scoping code for IPv6 as the interface in your 
> example is using
> > > scoping (your aliases) and that is code that would have 
> to be part of
> the
> > > base IPv6 stack to return from the API index routines?
> > >
> > > I am not clear this is a dhcp problem but an IPv6 
> implementation problem
> > > in general we all are working on now?
> > >
> > > Maybe I am missing your issue though?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > /jim
> > >
> 
> 

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