Re: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use Interface-ID option

[Anthony Baire <abaire at irisa.fr>]

Kostur, Andre wrote: RE: [dhcwg] [Question] When should we use
Interface-ID option
>
> > Hi Hideshi and all,
> >
> >
> > I am also wondering how the Interface-Id field should be used
> > practically.
> >
> > RFC3315 is quite clear about how to use it for routing
> > Relay-Reply messages back to the client. But the rfc is
> > evasive about how to use it in practice, especially how to
> > integrate it into the address assignment process.
> >
> > RFC3315 says servers can use the link-address field for
> > identifying to which link the client is attached so as to
> > assign a suitable ipv6 address. However when a relay-forward
> > message carries an Interface-Id option, the link-address
> > field is undefined[1]  but the server may still process it.
> > The outcome is undefined and the rfc does not address this issue.
> >
> > What do others think about this ?
> >
> > Do people here actually use the Interface-Id option ? if yes,
> > which policy is used for assigning ipv6 addresses to the clients ?
>
> And this would be the point.  The DHCP RFCs are not intended to
> dictate policy.  So other than suggesting that a DHCP server may use
> the Interface ID for address assignment policy, it is not up to the
> DHCP RFCs to say exactly how to do so.
>
> Offhand, I'd envision some sort of mechanism where the DHCP server is
> configured with the IPv6 address or DUID of the relay, and the
> Interface IDs, and some list of prefixes associated with the DUID,IfID
> pair.
>
Yes, I definitely agree that the DHCP RFCs role is not to give policies.
Meanwhile I believe that understanding how a feature is intended to be
used (or why it was added to RFC) is useful to implement the protocol
properly.

Anyway thanks all for your replies

Best Regards

--
Anthony Baire
INRIA/IRISA - ARMOR Project



_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg