IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 14 April 2009 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
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 19C4028C14B for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 dbbJx0hNjfxu for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B46528C143 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,185,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="286046713"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2009 15:33:22 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3EFXL63025523; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:33:21 -0700
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3EFXLhK000301; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:33:21 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:33:21 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A13924FC-1FFB-4BC3-9E48-640BDE10C17B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0904140830050.2732@irp-view13.cisco.com>
References: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9382A1F89@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A2666035AAAA2@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9382A1F91@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A2666035AAAA5@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> <A13924FC-1FFB-4BC3-9E48-640BDE10C17B@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=957; t=1239723202; x=1240587202; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[netlmm]=20Consensus=20call=3A=20RFC510 7=20based=20DHCP=20message=20interceptat=0A=20MAG |Sender:=20; bh=bXMqEFT3+oiaCEqkW7qpsswoE2frlHoXfFSWXCNaOgo=; b=B7bccbX4yXm4Sslh0umZ9uBZoyST829H3XySU349OfAzxaPWUW+mRhzwfL 4UsyB0GGOzxfS/nbVnmgelrFfZk5iXGlbHbtBA7OwEHUPP0SxuN1WudM5mgr WmMHiG7b+v;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message interceptat 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: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:32:11 -0000

Rajeev:


On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:

> Hi Rajeev,
>
> On 2009/04/10, at 17:50, Koodli, Rajeev wrote:
>
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> I think it is better to keep the LMA solely in charge of the DHCP, and use 
>> LMA - MAG signaling for state updates. It also simplifies the matter during 
>> handovers (how does the new MAG get the state synchronized, without MN 
>> involving in signaling? Does the MN have to send DHCP messages at each 
>> handover?).
>
> MN does not send any DHCP messages at handover, because HO is transparent to 
> MN.


Yes. HO is transparent. The DHCP entity address on the link that the
MN sees, is the default-router address for that MN, that never changes.
This is true for both when MAG is the DHCP relay and DHCP-S. Even after
a handoff, if the MN triggers the DHCP or not, after handoff it wont see
any change.

So, the address change of the MAG after HO is not an issue at all.

Sri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email