RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224FD3A6828 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yIr5vg5Xf-DR for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242FA3A680A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=1297; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301317709; x=1302527309; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=R4pCEQs1rLPMqZPmdnyGO44zX4JwVhhBIFUFDn1nc5o=; b=i+mE3QnTLiFsi2fXARZyiLy82GwJaMN4pv3fajTqKTuYzbC7BtM8qc4+ eVWS3NA4iYV5dZLzjQUCwrDgMxG5sf+FmLoEYU7yR/U4Q4+DkgdLDQWBu bYVltvNYMDaCCyt5jyyPQE2tQYTit2g+Dx7dVnz1KI1RcBX7VbjU/uyvU w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBAFGHkE2tJXG+/2dsb2JhbACYAI0/d6cKm2aFaQSFOosX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,255,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="284036592"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 13:08:28 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SD8TEt024969; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:08:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:08:29 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:08:26 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E5D8@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D907D77.1030904@innovationslab.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Thread-Index: AcvtQs4F1EIN0QOVSZeRPLpNha8CjQABBPew
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4D907D77.1030904@innovationslab.net>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net>, <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2011 13:08:29.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B411E70:01CBED49]
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:06:53 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:22 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3


>Does the DHCPv6 response contain any information about the DHCP-relay
used?

No - the reason is because the relay strips the relay-reply from the
server and then sends the response to the client's IPv6 link-local
address.  I am assuming the goal of this discussion is to find out how
does the client gets its default route?  The first-hop router also
happens to be a DHCPv6 relay agent. The email that I just sent will be
able to let the client know what the mac-address of the default router
is.  Thus when the client sends a globally destined packet upstream
towards the default router, the packet has a global destination and
global source (the source global address was acquired from DHCPv6).  The
packet is shipped to the default router using the mac-address of the
first-hop default router. 

My humble apologies if I did not understand the question being asked.
If that is the case, please articulate which node or policy table needs
to decide what for a SA and then we can discuss more.

Thanks,

Hemant