Subject: [MEXT] Question on draft-dupont-mext-dhcrelay-00

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:51:29 -0700

Is the draft proposing co-locating a DHCPv6 relay agent with the
mobile router, while the mobile router is also a DHCPv6 client?
It is not clear.

If yes, why is this better than co-locating the relay agent with
the home agent? Perhaps I am missing something.

Vijay
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:13:04 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> yes, locating a DHCPv6 relay agent at any place should be allowed
by a clever wording.

=> it is not better as it is not an alternative: I suggest to use
a wording allowing:
 - no relay,
 - a relay co-located with the server at the HA,
 - a relay co-located with the client at the MR,
 - both a relay co-located with the client at the MR and a relay
  co-located with the server at the HA,
 - the same but relays using the mobility signaling to encapsulate
  DHCPv6 messages.
So the idea is to introduce maximal flexibility in order to get rid of
DHCPv6 constraits like multicast and link-local, and at a side effect
to get *one* proposal to perform prefix delegation for NEMO, the
condition IMHO to reach a reasonable rough consensus.

Thanks

[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext