Re: [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 01 October 2009 17:43 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7303A6AC1 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.373, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0lWzvSULSG+R for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5CF3A6ABF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSsTqoS9D/gvmi5FDFBbw1r+WiK5lCJq7@postini.com; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:45:07 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8377A1B8332; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:45:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02DC13E5@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:45:02 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <8151CFF6-06CA-4366-9E02-B93C5E45CE23@nominum.com>
References: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02DC13AF@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com> <63A4473E-A462-4495-BD39-68976238F5BA@nominum.com> <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02DC13E5@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
To: MILES DAVID <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:43:42 -0000
On Sep 30, 2009, at 7:58 PM, MILES DAVID wrote: > is a valid DHCPv6 message (per RFC 3315) Is there a reason for this exception? I would argue that it should intercept all packets that meet the other qualifications, including packets that turn out not to be valid. If they are not valid, it drops them on the floor. What would be the benefit in forwarding them? > The LDRA copies the peer-address into to the destination IP address > field and SHOULD forward the packet to the correct client-facing > interface using the destination link-layer (MAC) address or the > Interface-Id in the Relay-Reply. > > Do we go for a MUST? Two things. First, I think a MUST is unnecessary to ensure interoperability. Second, I think having one clause of a specification sentence that doesn't have a SHOULD and another that does is a bad thing. So I would further reword this: The LDRA copies the peer-address into to the destination IP address field. The LDRA SHOULD forward the packet to the correct client- facing interface using the destination link-layer (MAC) address or the Interface-Id in the Relay-Reply. The LDRA SHOULD NOT retransmit the packet on any other interface. The reason I say to not make it a must is that you may have a case, probably _not_ in a cable modem or DSL environment, where the device isn't smart enough to do this, and I don't think it's necessary to make such a device non-conforming. > Thanks again Ted, Thanks for working on this!
- [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA MILES DAVID
- Re: [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA MILES DAVID
- Re: [dhcwg] Call for comments - LDRA Ted Lemon