Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

[Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

>> the use of a relay message is purely to get around the 3315 restriction of using a link-local address.
>> the client is local to the node. assume for arguments sake that in the implementation the client is acting also as the relay.
> 
> I suspected as much.   IMHO, this is the wrong thing to do.   Just use the tunnel endpoint address instead of the link-local address in the case where there is no link-local address.   You'd have to make this standards-track and update RFC3315, but I think that's okay.   There's no magic to using the link-local address on broadcast interfaces—it's just the one address we can always count on the client having.   Of course, in this case we can't count on that, and if you look at section 1.1 of RFC3315 and section 11, you can see that the standard already accounts for cases where the link-local address is not used.   Actually, it looks like the spec may have a bug with respect to unicast that needs to be fixed.

I think we should do this too. let us make sure we get that into the RFC3315bis that I clearly remember you volunteered to write. ;-)
this draft proposes a solution that only affects the client implementation though (that is changing anyway), so I think we need this for a deployable solution.

cheers,
Ole