Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Interface-ID option

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 09 May 2002 13:30 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 JAA20467 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA25758 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25646; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25629 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20377 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g49DRkC05701; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:27:46 -0400
Message-Id: <200205091327.g49DRkC05701@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Interface-ID option
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> of "Wed, 08 May 2002 13:03:09 CDT." <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D3C3@EAMBUNT705>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 09:27:45 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
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

> >    The relay agent puts the client's address in the link-address field
> >    regardless of whether the relay agent includes an Interface-id option
> >    in the Relay-forward message.

> Agreed. This is wrong and needs to be fixed. It should say:

>    The relay agent puts a global or site-scoped address with a prefix
>    assigned to the link on which the client should be assigned an
>    address in the link-address field regardless of whether the relay
>    agent includes an Interface-id option in the Relay-forward
>    message.

This clarifies the confusion I had.

> >Any reaosn not to make this 32 bits? the IPv6 API already has 32-bit
> >interface IDs. Is there any reason to make it larger?

> I think it best to keep it variable-length since relays may use this
> for optimization reasons. For example, in 3G specs we were thinking
> of allowing the PDP-Context number on the GGSN to be carried in this
> field (this speeds the return of the reply to the client). While
> this might fit into 32-bits, why force it?

Fine with me.

Thomas

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