IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Questions about layer two relay agents in dhcpv4...

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 13 October 2010 00:14 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 BEFA23A6832 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 qqcnuzlIAzgZ for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB83A67E6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTLT6QqsF3z+azIfSUvWAOM9o1VwQ4bW1@postini.com; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:16:02 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 F24791B8481; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:16:01 -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 8.2.176.0; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:16:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101012213931.GD14958@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:15:59 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C8D9653F-4A18-42D3-A9B7-0A5D61BBA837@nominum.com>
References: <8B2420CE-026D-465D-9256-B2DA76310CE1@fugue.com> <F5FD885F-24A7-416A-B3A4-D7D965DB6D06@fugue.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A1072162BE2@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <20101012213931.GD14958@isc.org>
To: "David W.Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Questions about layer two relay agents in dhcpv4...
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: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:14:48 -0000

On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:39 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
> I'd be equally pleased if an "L2RA Protocol" standards-track document
> were started, but due to my nascient cynicism as to the rate at which
> good ideas become RFC's around here, I'd personally suggest we take
> the current draft to RFC and start a second piece of work for the
> standard protocol.

I should say that the current relay agent encapsulation draft essentially defines a standards-track l2ra solution, because it was necessary to make the draft work.   It is conceivable that it could be teased out into a separate draft, although that's less easy than I originally anticipated.   As I've mentioned before, I'd be interested in working with the authors of the current l2ra draft to see if they think this is possible.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email