Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt

Shankari Vaidyalingam <shankari.v2k6@gmail.com> Wed, 01 February 2012 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <shankari.v2k6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A5E11E8095 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLwRVPRSjnw0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B686021F8497 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so1191157iag.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JyQKs8m7rPDSUxBVcUZDt4Vlp5+7BaAZBqjWdX6MTYM=; b=w5IAcFgrkV93FlSSjaaYV3f0gFzDkiDiDW1FhfD8nHHpWPqzTbyCyN2+ZFH/aIG7Pu PtxXudDklwF6lHfFV7WiF4UYIi+1qUYeoE6DbGD/1HHYB3Iz7gcEZYgdmfWpsd5X3kNb 3q4ajUg20vnkQuKhkwfY+n4REViAeqEhb4pD4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.95.166 with SMTP id dl6mr14881384igb.27.1328073973289; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.181.194 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:56:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAGeyXNcUbko5ZL0AzK0KbkuuOp3dm0kLyqfuYat8drGNFyT7mQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shankari Vaidyalingam <shankari.v2k6@gmail.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba0e369d3fa04b7e051c3"
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:26:15 -0000

Hi,

I have read and reviewed the document and I support this document moving
forward.

Please find below some queries on the relay-id draft:
(1) When the relay-id is not configured by the user then can you please let
me know what would be the behavior in the event of relay-agent crash?
(2) Can you let me know how the relay-id is maintained unique across the
relay agents connected to a particular server.
(3) When the relay-agent recovers from crash and sends a "bulk-lease-query"
with the relay-id to restore the previous configuration/mappings, what
would be the approx amount of recovery time allowed for full functionality
of relay agent to resume.

Please correct me if I have gone wrong anywhere or my understanding is
wrong.

Thanks & Regards,
Shankari.V


-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org<redir.aspx?C=e263ab2e94014eda9170c4db7abf9262&URL=mailto%3adhcwg-bounces%40ietf.org>]
On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:47 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt

This is a pretty brief document that defines a relay agent identifier that
can be sent in option 82.   It's been through WGLC and sent to the IESG
once, but the author was unable to respond to IESG comments, so it got
dropped.   Bharat Joshi took it over back in June and has updated it and
requested comment.

We didn't hear any comment on the mailing list.   I've read the draft and
it looks reasonable, but I'd like to see more review, so I'm doing this
last call in hopes that someone will take the time to look at the
document.   Because of the Christmas and New Years' holidays that some
participants will be celebrating, we won't call consensus on this until
January 5.

If you think this document is useful and should be published, please say
so.   If you don't think it should be published, please say so.   If you
haven't read the document, please don't express an opinion about it.

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg<redir.aspx?C=e263ab2e94014eda9170c4db7abf9262&URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fdhcwg>