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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224FD3A6828 for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.672
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yIr5vg5Xf-DR for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242FA3A680A for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 13:08:28 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SD8TEt024969; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:08:29 GMT
Received: from ([]) by 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: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Thread-Index: AcvtQs4F1EIN0QOVSZeRPLpNha8CjQABBPew
References: <> <>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: "Brian Haberman" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2011 13:08:29.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B411E70:01CBED49]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:06:53 -0000

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

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

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.