Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.txt

"Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <> Fri, 21 September 2012 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21A721F8714; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.284
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.315, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KGse7vguOG13; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE2821F870B; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1332; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348238112; x=1349447712; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tlH8j68zHD8gZyAlZVvVCDesJEdFDPrxqFq5hjA29Dw=; b=GmfRnXRlaqoOY/KL2zy68C5pXQ24UehalE2KFiw11sSO+CqeOmjrQsoG lAeLLIKdjBmsiNl+bpQzb3db3DEGp4mUHHldlml0WxGfn6P00V57x0yAv +nDx0n3RGw8+E1sPcRCOMYKiIDCezXes4IhR0c60+twOzdPfVCNmnJOFK s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,463,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="123998611"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2012 14:35:11 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8LEZBk2005522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:35:11 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:35:11 -0500
From: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <>
To: Bud Millwood <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNl+S9NIcNYjKE+0GFA4wX5IPS9peVJYeA//+zSwA=
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:35:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--28.613200-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:35:13 -0000

Hi Bud,

> If DHCPv6 Server is configured to store or use client link-layer address, it SHOULD look for the client link-layer address option in the RELAY-FORW DHCP message of the DHCPv6 Relay agent closest to the client.

>Although I understand what "closest to the client" means (I use that term myself), is that the correct terminology? It could also be referred to as the inner-most RELAY-FORW message, or the first RELAY-FORW message. Is there even a standard terminology for this? I just glanced through 3315 and don't see anything.

[Gaurav] We could change that to "inner-most RELAY-FORW".

>Also, the server "SHOULD" look for the link-layer address in the closest RELAY-FORW message. What are the ramifications of changing this to MUST? Is there any scenario where a second-hop relay would know the link-layer address, but the first hop wouldn't know it or support this RFC? Do we gain anything by enforcing that a conveyed link-layer address is only valid or to be trusted if it's from the first-hop relay?

[Gaurav] Well the purpose of this spec is to enforce relay agent to add client link-layer address option in the relay forward message. Whereas we don't really want to enforce anything on the server on how it should extract/use this option.