IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 C14E911E8135 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.73
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 7ICmrAeGmPL3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BDD11E812E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r8R7GX1Z021331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:16:33 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8R7GXqi011300 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:16:33 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r8R7GTmQ000301 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:16:33 +0200
Message-ID: <524530CD.3030500@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:16:29 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>, <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org> <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com> <52306010.4090001@gmail.com> <5E91E9B8-6E22-46DD-A687-B4983BD0B508@gmail.com> <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com> <52402AF3.8010407@gmail.com> <5240486E.20501@gmail.com> <52405701.9070506@gmail.com> <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com> <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com> <5241b722.c467440a.7dd8.ffff8e3c@mx.google.com> <5241C0B6.9040200@gmail.com> <52428618.21ab440a.16d7.62d5@mx.google.com> <5242C892.4020008@gmail.com> <52433C10.4010403@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52433C10.4010403@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:16:47 -0000

Le 25/09/2013 21:40, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
> On 25.09.2013 13:27, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> I am not sure there exists a term 'DHCPv6 Requestor' as depicted below.
> This term is defined in RFC5007. DHCPv6 Requestor is an entity that
> sends leasequery requests and processes leasequery responses. While
> typically that is a part of relay agent software that recover client
> info after relay reboot, it doesn't have to be. From the protocol
> perspective, a requestor is a separate entity.
>
> There are stand-alone implementations that offer leasequery requestor
> functionality, without being relays.

Thanks for the explanation!

This term Requestor makes sense in that context of requesting a 
leasequery and maybe being on a Relay.

Until now I always talked Requesting Router as being the Client 
requesting a Prefix, and safely different than the Relay.

Alex

>
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email