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

KOIDE Kazuhide <koide@shiratori.riec.tohoku.ac.jp> Mon, 13 April 2009 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <koide@shiratori.riec.tohoku.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5885C3A6822 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 bSJFn3MUpLP5 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc5.sendai.wide.ad.jp (pc5.sendai.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:7000::5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165D33A6D7B for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (123.230.51.32.er.eaccess.ne.jp [123.230.51.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by pc5.sendai.wide.ad.jp (8.14.2/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n3DE2pxp085157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:02:53 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from koide@shiratori.riec.tohoku.ac.jp)
Message-ID: <49E34605.2030301@shiratori.riec.tohoku.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:02:45 +0900
From: KOIDE Kazuhide <koide@shiratori.riec.tohoku.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, "netlmm@ietf.org" <netlmm@ietf.org>
References: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9382A1F89@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9382A1F89@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9228/Mon Apr 13 08:21:25 2009 on pc5.sendai.wide.ad.jp
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message intercept at MAG
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:01:47 -0000

Hi Vidya,

I am not thoroughly familiar with this issue, but
I think MAGs need to intercept DHCP messages effectively
for DHCP relay functions
because MNs that have DHCP states come from other MAGs.

Best regards,

--koide


Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> 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
>