>What I confused is why the situation whether you have
global/site-scoped
>address or not will affect the link-address.
Perhaps I still don't understand. The relay must fill in the
link-address field with something that provides the server
an
indiciation of where (network topology wise) the client is.
So, what use
is a link-local address in the link-address field?
>Maybe it is better to make the function of link-address
simpler. Just a
hint
>to server.
That is essentially all that it is. A server can certainly
have policy
that overrides this. But most servers will use it as a very
strong hint
as DHCPv4 servers use the giaddr as a strong hint as to
whether the
client is.
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Zhao [mailto:zhaoyuping huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:00 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz); 'Templin, Fred L'
Cc: dhcwgietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [New I-D] DHCPv6 Relay Agent Link
Selection(RALS)
Option
Hello!
Please see in line!
Thanks!
B.R.
Amy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volzcisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:12 PM
> To: Amy Zhao; Templin, Fred L
> Cc: dhcwgietf.org
> Subject: 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.
What I confused is why the situation whether you have
global/site-scoped
address or not will affect the link-address.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amy Zhao [mailto:zhaoyupinghuawei.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:56 PM
> To: 'Templin, Fred L'; Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: dhcwgietf.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!
Can it use peer-address to determine the interface?
>
> 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.
Why?A server can uses the options inserted by non-first
relay agent in
selecting configuration parameters, why not be able to use
non-first
link-address field.
Maybe it is better to make the function of link-address
simpler. Just a
hint
to server.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> B.R.
> Amy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templinboeing.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:30 AM
> > To: Bernie Volz (volz); Amy
> > Cc: dhcwgietf.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.templinboeing.com
> >
> > - Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templinboeing.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:51 PM
> > To: Bernie Volz (volz); Amy
> > Cc: dhcwgietf.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.templinboeing.com
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwgietf.org
> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwgietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwgietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
|