[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dhcwg] [New I-D] DHCPv6 Relay Agent Link Selection(RALS) Option
I'm confused by what you're confused about. See some comments inline.
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Zhao [mailto:zhaoyuping at huawei.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:56 PM
To: 'Templin, Fred L'; Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [New I-D] DHCPv6 Relay Agent Link Selection(RALS)
Option
Hello!
To be honest, I am confused about your discussion.
On the first-hop relay agent , the function of link-address is a
hint
to server where the client is. But on the non-first -hop relay agent,
what
is the fuction of link-address, still a hint? or other function? I did
not
see any clear descriptions in RFC3315. Maybe I missed it.
BV> There is no use for the server specified by 3315. However, it is
expected to be used by the that RELAY AGENT in the Relay-Reply to
determine the interface (in the absense of an interface-id option
perhaps) on which to relay the Relay-Reply to the next relay (or
client). So, it does have value and should be set!
If it is a hint, and if non-first-hop relay agent can not decide
where
the client is, I think the relay agent should set the link-address to 0.
And
I think it is not irrelate with the case that whether or not you have
global/site-scoped address.
I think the function of link-address field on first-hop and
non-first-hop relay agent should be same. And in RFC3315, it is
difference.
Why?
BV> It is the same with respect to how a relay uses it in processing
Relay-Reply (ie, which interface to relay that packet to). However, a
server only uses the first (closest to client) link-address field.
Thanks.
B.R.
Amy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:30 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); Amy
> Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [New I-D] DHCPv6 Relay Agent Link
> Selection(RALS) Option
>
> Bernie,
>
> > So, my feeling is that you should use 0 unless you have
> something of
> > real value to put there.
>
> I don't mind having the relay write 0, but:
>
> > I fully agree that this is not clearly specified in RFC
> 3315 and that
> > should definitely be cleared up in a 3315-bis document. However, I
> also
> > feel that the existing RFC 3315 text gives more weight to don't set
> the
> > field (ie, leave it 0) if you have no global/site-scoped
> address. In
> > general, when an RFC doesn't say to add something to a
> message or set
> a
> > given field, we have assumed it is 0.
>
> The final sentence of (RFC3315, Section 21.1.1) strongly
> implies that something other than 0 should be written, so it
> seems like at least that much should be clarified in a -bis.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin at boeing.com
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:51 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); Amy
> Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [New I-D] DHCPv6 Relay Agent Link
> Selection(RALS) Option
>
> Bernie,
>
> responding to:
> > In other forums there has been some discussions as to
> whether to place
> a
> > link-local address into this field, but IMHO I think that is a bad
> idea
> > as it conveys no information
> and:
> > Just to be sure - I was talking only about the link-address field.
> That
> > is where a link-local address is useless.
>
> OK, but then (RFC3315, Section 20.1.1) doesn't give clear
> guidance on what the realy agent should write into
> "link-address" when there there is no global/site-scoped
> address available for the link. Should it say that the relay
> agent writes "0" into link-address in that case?
> (Wouldn't writing a link-local address instead be better than "0"?)
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin at boeing.com
>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg