Re: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message intercept at MAG

Hi all

Technically:

I am okay with keeping this optional mechanism.

BR
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>
To: <netlmm@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:48 PM
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message intercept at 
MAG

> An issue has been raised on the inclusion of the DHCP Server Identifier 
> Override sub-option (specified in RFC5107) as a means for the MAG to 
> intercept the MN's DHCP messages sent to the DHCP server.  This option 
> allows the relay (MAG) to act like the DHCP server and more directly get 
> the MN to even address the RENEW DHCP requests to itself, so that the MAG 
> can include the Relay Agent option in those messages as well.  Without 
> this option, the relay in the MAG would need to intercept all DHCP 
> messages.
>
> In PMIPv6, all packets from the MN will go through the MAG - from an 
> implementation perspective, my interpretation is that the use of RFC5107 
> is likely to make a difference in the extent of hardware based forwarding 
> that is made feasible in the MAG.  Otherwise, functionally, the MAG should 
> be able to intercept all DHCP messages even without this option.
>
> The issue raised is primarily from an IPR perspective - please see the 
> following link for the IPR terms associated with RFC5107:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/124/
>
> I would like to hear WG input on whether you prefer to keep the option in 
> the document or take it out.  If you can provide an explanation for the 
> choice you make (IPR and/or technical), it will be useful.
>
> Please respond to the list by April 15th, 2009.
>
> Thanks,
> Vidya <as co-chair>
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm 