RE: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents

Bernie and Ted,

Thanks; this gives additional information that would
have allowed me to say  "yes" instead of "no opinion"
to Leasequery and Relay Agent Echo Request Option.

Is it too late to change my vote?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:56 AM
> To: Ted Lemon; Stig Venaas
> Cc: dhcwg
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents
> 
> Ted:
> 
> It doesn't leave out discovering prefix delegations. When a requestor
> queries for an address, either the stateful address lease *OR* the
> delegated prefix that "contains" the queried address is returned,
> depending on what is "leased".
> 
> Yes, there is no specific query to ask whether a specific 
> Prefix (prefix
> + prefix-length) is leased, but I didn't see that that was needed and
> the requestor might not even know what it is (otherwise, why 
> would it be
> querying).
> 
> Remember that the basic model is to support relay agents (such as
> CMTS's) that have lost "state". The relay agent will attempt 
> to recover
> state when a packet arrives with a source or destination address
> (depending on the direction of the traffic) that the router does not
> have in its tables. As the router only has an address, it would not
> query for a delegated prefix (and that would perhaps require 
> TWO queries
> -- one for the address and another for a delegated prefix).
> 
> So, by querying for the address the relay agent would get back the
> client and lease information for either the stateful address or the
> delegated prefix per the draft.
> 
> We can certainly add a query by prefix if that is desired in 
> the future,
> but I just find it unlikely that the relay agent would know what the
> prefix length is in advance.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:37 PM
> To: Stig Venaas
> Cc: dhcwg
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents
> 
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> > Please note that Ralph asked this to verify consensus
> > for starting last calls. Based on the positive input we
> > got for agentopt-delegate and srsn-option we started a
> > last call for those. Once that is completed we will
> > see if we now also got sufficient support for starting
> > last calls on leasequery and ero.
> 
> I'm mildly uncomfortable with leasequery simply because it's 
> a rather  
> complex draft and I haven't had the time to sit down and try to  
> implement it, so I'm worried that there are bugs in it.   Also, it  
> seems to leave out discovering Prefix Delegations, which 
> seems like a  
> significant omission.   But with those caveats, I'm okay with 
> it going  
> forward to the next step, as long as we understand that it may need  
> fixes if errors are discovered during implementation.   
> Possibly those  
> can be folded in when the solution for Prefix Delegation is described.
> 
> I'm also fine with ERO going to last call.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

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