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

"Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> Fri, 10 April 2009 05:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rkoodli@starentnetworks.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 34BBC3A6D4B for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, 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 ugihuZ5bIPVy for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1C43A6D47 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3099055E for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20682-15 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:51:41 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:50:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A2666035AAAA2@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message intercept at MAG
Thread-Index: Acm5l5bZe/rw7pCLTNK7WcN/v0lm3AACK2k9
References: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9382A1F89@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>
To: netlmm@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2009 05:51:41.0727 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C2882F0:01C9B9A0]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:50:47 -0000

 
Hi Vidya,
 
question for my clarification: why does the MAG need to intercept DHCP messages?
 
Thanks,
 
-Rajeev
 

________________________________

From: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Narayanan, Vidya
Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 9:48 PM
To: netlmm@ietf.org
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