[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dhcwg] Query on RFC 3315 - Section 20
Thank you Ted and Bernie for clarifying the RFC. As Bernie pointed out, it would be good to state "IPv6 header's Hop Limit" instead of just "Hop Limit" in a future revision of the document.
Regards,
Ranga..
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz at cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:33 AM
To: Sampath, Rangaprasad (ProCurve Networking); dhcwg at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Query on RFC 3315 - Section 20
This is the IPv6 header that the text is referring to. When a multicast
packet is sent (over IPv6), it must have a hop limit. If 1 were used
(the default multicast hop limit), then what point would there have been
in making the All_DHCP_Servers (a site-scoped multicast address)
anything but a link-local scoped multicast address.
Perhaps a future version of the document could say "IPv6 header's hop
limit" instead of just "hop limit".
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Sampath, Rangaprasad (ProCurve Networking)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:44 AM
To: dhcwg at ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Query on RFC 3315 - Section 20
Hello Everyone..
Section 20 of RFC states the following:
"If the relay agent relays messages to the All_DHCP_Servers multicast
address or other multicast addresses, it sets the Hop Limit field to
32."
Is the RFC referring to the IPv6 header field "Hop Limit" or it is
referring to the DHCPv6 header field "Hop Count" in the above statement?
My impression is that the RFC is referring to the DHCPv6 header field
"Hop Count" and stating that this must be set to 32 if the relay agent
relays messages to any multicast IPv6 address. If this is TRUE, then the
RFC perhaps has a typo. Could someone please comment on what is correct.
Thank you.
Regards,
Ranga..
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg