Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 30 August 2001 16:23 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 MAA20961; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:23:27 -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 MAA02906; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA02876 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20862 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:20:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl081-147-128.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.147.128]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7UGGPf15654; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7UGM8l00649; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108301622.f7UGM8l00649@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
cc: "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-address" from th e DHCPv6 header
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:36:57 CDT." <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC697B34D3@eambunt705.ena-east.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:22:08 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.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

> For 2, the relay can either use 3 or provide some other means of
> identifying this information. It may not be an address - it could
> just be an interface id or some other opaque info. So, I suggest
> that for 2, we simply have an "Interface-ID" option which is
> whatever the relay wants it to be. The server should treat it as
> opaque and simply echo it back to the relay. If the relay doesn't
> need it (because the info in (3) is sufficient), it need not provide
> this option.

We've already got two options that handle this - the circuit ID and
the remote ID.   Do we need a third, or is the circuit ID already
serving this purpose?

			       _MelloN_

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