Re: [dhcwg] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt

Thomas,

>> > >     Because a requesting router and delegating routers are attached to the
>> > >     same link, they may be able to use IPsec with link-local addresses for
>> > >     authentication of DHCPv6 messages.
>> >
>> >This seems like an unreasonable requirement.
>
>> What requirement does the "this" refer to?
>
> That that requesting and delegating router must share a link. DHCP
> doesn't require that, and I don't recall the document ever saying or
> implying this for this option.

you are correct that the document doesn't say that the requesting and
delegating routers have to be on the same link.

the issue one has to consider is with regards to whom is going to
inject a route for the delegated prefix into the delegator's routing
system. if the routers are directly connected the delegating router
can inject a route on behalf of the requesting router. if you use a
relay agent it becomes a bit more tricky. we didn't want to require a
dynamic routing protocol between the requesting and delegating
routers.

one might use a relay but then this issue needs to be resolved, we've
defined it out of scope for the document so far, are you all right
with that?

cheers,
Ole

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