RE: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 25 September 2001 12:15 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 IAA29049; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:15:42 -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 IAA05686; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA05662 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:15:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29034 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-117.cisco.com [10.21.112.117]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA07357 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:14:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010925080039.00b6a270@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:14:04 -0400
To: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Question on Relay address field
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC697B3651@eambunt705.ena-east .ericsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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

Let me see if I can successfully summarize the issues and give
my review:

Protocol specification - we need to make clear that the specification
for the relay agent allows for the relay agent to use any of its
addresses assigned to the same link as the client is attached.  The
current text from the -20 rev is, IMHO, almost right:

17.1. Relaying of client messages

    When a Relay receives a valid client message, it constructs a
    Relay-forward message.  The relay places an address with a prefix
    assigned to the link on which the client should be assigned an
    address in the link-prefix field.  This address will be used by the
    server to determine the link from which the client should be assigned
    an address and other configuration information.

I was about to suggest a clarification to edit the second sentence
to begin: "The relay places one of its own addresses with a prefix..."
But, I don't think that's necessary - the address in the link-prefix
field doesn't even need to belong to the relay.  All that's required
is that the prefix of the address be assigned to the right link.

Implementability - we need to make sure that what we've specified
in section 17.1 is actually implementable.  If we agree that the
text in 17.1 is OK, then there is no *requirement* that the address
be selected from the addresses assigned to the interfaces.  All that's
required is that the relay agent have some way to pick an appropriate
address for each inbound message from a client.  Implementors may
choose to use some static configuration, independent of interface
addresses, or may choose to develop a list at initialization in the
relay agent through the interface API, or may choose to look up the
list of addresses dynamically (again through the interface API) as
each message is received.

If we agree that the current text in 17.1 (rev -20) is implementable,
we can leave the text unchanged...

- Ralph



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