Re: [dhcwg] Request for adoption of draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

If the question on whether or not adoption is supported, then my answer 
is yes, I support adoption.

If the question is to receive feedback of the draft, then my answer is 
this: I support requirement R-1 'relay MUST maintain a local routing 
table dynamically updated with prefixes and next hops as they [the 
prefixes] are delegated to clients'.

Alex

Le 26/09/2019 à 08:58, Naveen Kottapalli a écrit :
> Hello DHC WG,
> 
> We would like to request for the adoption of our draft 
> draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements> that 
> was submitted in June-2019.  As a background, please find the details of 
> draft below.
> 
> The draft addresses the below problems by defining the requirements of a 
> DHCPv6 Relay agent when relaying the delegated prefixes.
> 
> 1.  Client / Relay / Server goes out of sync resulting in route 
> mismanagement which in turn results in traffic issues.
> 2.  Relay rejects client messages due to unknown or stale prefix.
> 3.  Relay generates messages ‘on behalf’ of the server
> 4.  Issues observed when more than 1 prefix is delegated to clients
> 
> We would like to hear feedback from the forum on the draft and will be 
> happy to address the issues in draft (if any).
> 
> Yours,
> Naveen.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>