[dhcwg] Generic DHCPv6 Message

"Paul Tan" <tanpaul@cwc.nus.edu.sg> Fri, 05 April 2002 09:25 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00623 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:25:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA18357 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:25:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA18238; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:22:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA18210 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:22:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cwcsun41.cwc.nus.edu.sg (cwcsun41.cwc.nus.edu.sg [137.132.163.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00571 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:22:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tanhl (tanhl.cwc.nus.edu.sg [172.16.2.66]) by cwcsun41.cwc.nus.edu.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01148 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:21:11 +0800 (SGT)
Message-ID: <010701c1dc84$90655b80$420210ac@tanhl>
From: "Paul Tan" <tanpaul@cwc.nus.edu.sg>
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69BC77F0@EAMBUNT705>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:30:45 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0102_01C1DCC7.9E5640E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Subject: [dhcwg] Generic DHCPv6 Message
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

DHCPv6 - server-address and unicastHi all,

I am currently implementing DHCPv6 (draft 23) and have some questions regarding the DHCPv6 Relay Message.

Question: Is it possible to have a generic DHCPv6 message structure for all (even the relayed messages) messages ? I must apologise if this issue has been rised previously.

The idea is to have a common DHCP message for all message exchange. Since both the link-address and client-return-address are IPv6 addresses, we can carried these addresses as Options (e.g Address Option) in the DHCPv6 message. These options are placed in front of the rest of the options (e.g Client/Server Message Options) so that servers can discard any messages from the Relay if the servers decide not to reply based on the two addresses.

The advantage is a preferred generic message structure for all DHCPv6 messages. This enables the processing of DHCPv6 message to be identical for both the server and relay (at least the encoding/decoding mechanism). Or is there any issues that I have overlook.

I must apologize if my proposal sounds irrelevant. Please comment.

Thank you,
Paul