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

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ted
> Lemon
> 发送时间: 2012年9月25日 22:18
> 收件人: Ole Trøan
> 抄送: dhc WG
> 主题: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-tunnel-01.txt
> 
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> > the use of a relay message is purely to get around the 3315 restriction of
> using a link-local address.
> > the client is local to the node. assume for arguments sake that in the
> implementation the client is acting also as the relay.
> 
> I suspected as much.   IMHO, this is the wrong thing to do.   Just use the
> tunnel endpoint address instead of the link-local address in the case where
> there is no link-local address.   You'd have to make this standards-track and
> update RFC3315, but I think that's okay.   There's no magic to using the

Hi Ted,

In fact, one of the co-authors had ever proposed to update RFC3315 for the purpose of relaxing that limitation of using link-local addresses. However, since it will cause changes to the protocol specifications and especially the implementations of DHCP servers, we co-authors finally reached a consensus that we'd better avoid updating RFC3315 if possible.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> link-local address on broadcast interfaces—it's just the one address we can
> always count on the client having.   Of course, in this case we can't count on
> that, and if you look at section 1.1 of RFC3315 and section 11, you can see that	
> the standard already accounts for cases where the link-local address is not
> used.   Actually, it looks like the spec may have a bug with respect to unicast
> that needs to be fixed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg