Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments

[Tomasz Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-03-18 00:13, xiayangsong wrote:
> Please see my inline comments...
> 
> BR
> Frank

> I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
> Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
> is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
> as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
> would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
> typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
> Frank=>Just I explained aforementioned, we need define DHCPv4 option for
> carrying home agents information(such as IPv6 addresses). We can't encapsulate
> DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options because the client is DHCPv4 only.
Agree. I maybe didn't express myself clearly. DHCPv6 options must not be
encapsulated in DHCPv4 options.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the authors, so let me explain how I
read the draft: draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01, section 4.2 defines DSMIPv6
Relay Agent Option (a DHCPv4 Option) that contains sub-options field.
Its content is defined as "A series of sub-options as specified in
I-D.ietf-mip6-hiopt". ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 defines couple DHCPv6 options.
I'm not sure how can this be interpreted otherwise than an attempt to
encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions within DHCPv4 option.

> At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including
> OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay?
> Frank=>Access routers as DHCP relay and DHCPv4 servers includes the option.
I think this should be clarified in the draft.

Hope that helps,
Tomek