Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.txt
Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 13:55 UTC
Return-Path: <budmillwood@gmail.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 843FD21F883E; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 u-et3JdmsbWf; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF96821F883D; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so6255780iec.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7/kw381BJxlvqNRJo+4FeJhpbGctWm6/YlHhGPLJ/PY=; b=035oT5YT429v/stTuCPI/BXbLwOGBNng+NzzMPU7c4bjpb1xqti8vBiV5sM5m1E2t2 V5qa8lHGgYlnJoe8mWj7YlUFKb3n6qAjyN2V0mVU5n5Ivlu6a59EwmwDEIHhqYhlnCZ2 xOhLQmF75CWq5cPQBJHrZzLmKCFtFwj8Rl17a8jeieu8FVlqf0nDn+ZVhvvJ7ws3cgn6 ok+uNjNN+mUbPWmxSnMnxfxqk6PEFKYz9xGT+ZlHiE/RDgKPTF4BTQzx3oG8clZXzciC IBbm+NK39LrqVZ/M7I++omY5CoQEhqqVYmw5+LWeobddz9KmwgKvdX/NnyaKg0lMA+b3 DwDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.180.169 with SMTP id dp9mr1719618igc.8.1348235725332; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: budmillwood@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.35.198 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120921103403.10090.70019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120921103403.10090.70019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:55:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: y9mbDxDrFC_FBEfyKy-FDivS6a8
Message-ID: <CAOpJ=k3ZUhda4Z_oQD=Ktdo1Do+2n9yaDrDb1wndG1QmfSS8mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:55:26 -0000
5. DHCPv6 Server Behavior > 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. 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? - Bud On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Client Link-layer Address Option in DHCPv6 > Author(s) : Gaurav Halwasia > Shwetha Bhandari > Wojciech Dec > Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2012-09-21 > > Abstract: > This document specifies the format and mechanism that is to be used > for encoding client link-layer address in DHCPv6 relay forward > messages by defining a new DHCPv6 Client Link-layer Address option. > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-02 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-… internet-drafts
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Simon Hobson
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… perl-list
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Chuck Anderson
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Bud Millwood
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-cli… Bud Millwood