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

One comment:

All packets will surely go through MAG. In all  OS's, the forwarding
plane will simple route the packet through the tunnel and not punt it
up. With oth the MAG inserting iteself in the path by using this option,
every packet needs to be inspected for DHCP type and punted up. Will have
performance impact.

Also, Vijay will enlighten every one, one how an informational
text can create IPR issues.

Sri

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, 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
>