IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com> Mon, 27 August 2012 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364A321F85A5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLq6QuiJEbDt for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1C321F855D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id APJ00695; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:51:56 -0700
Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:51:55 -0700
Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.119]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:51:52 +0800
From: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
To: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNdvWqSDMOAnuzpUmlatl1eCUEGJdX0gXAgBWNlcA=
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:51:52 +0000
Message-ID: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C4668ED@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <4D779082-B182-4728-9534-39456573682E@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4EA3B4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4EA3B4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.83.152]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:55:05 -0000

+1


Bernie - Also, while relaying the packet seems like a fine idea, it might be useful to indicate what the relay should use for a peer-address in the Relay-Forw message. It is all 0's? (Normally the client's link local address would be stored there.)

If the unspecified IPv6 address (::) is used also as the 'peer-address' in the Relay-Reply message, then it will be regarded that this message targets to the relay itself, and no need to forward to other one, right?

One more question for the 'link-address' of the Relay-Forward message: it is also the unspecified IPv6 address, right?


Best Regards,
Leaf


-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:36 PM
To: Ted Lemon; dhc WG
Cc: ot@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

I am OK with advancing this.

A few nits:

- In section 1:

  The source tunnel end-point often need more configuration data for

I think need should be needs here.

- In section 3, "CE" and "BR" are not defined and should be the first time used (or perhaps a terminology section is appropriate).

Also, while relaying the packet seems like a fine idea, it might be useful to indicate what the relay should use for a peer-address in the Relay-Forw message. It is all 0's? (Normally the client's link local address would be stored there.)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:43 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt

The authors of this draft have requested a working group last call.   The draft explains how DHCP clients operate in an environment where the interface being configured doesn't support multicast (e.g., 6RD).   If this is a matter of interest to you, please review the draft and send comments to the list.

If you are in favor of advancing the draft, please say so on the list; if nobody supports it, it won't advance.   If you oppose advancing it, please also say so.   We will determine consensus on August 24.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email