Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option andR ADIUS Attributes sub-option

From: "Kuntal Chowdhury" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:08:16 -0400

I have not followed this discussion yet, but I would like to notify the WG
about the following draft we submitted:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chowdhury-dhc-mip6-agentop-00.txt

The idea is to allow the relay agent to convey some received information
from RADIUS or DIAMETER server to the MN for MIP6 bootstrapping when the
relay agent is also a NAS.

"
Abstract

   This document defines a new DHCPv6 option and number of sub-options
   for DHCP Relay Agent to facilitate Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping along
   with a AAA infrastructure.
"

Comments are welcome.

Regards,
Kuntal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bernie Volz
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:14 PM
To: 'Wing Cheong Lau'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option
andRADIUS Attributes sub-option

In a RFC 3315-bis, we'll need to correct this. Appendix B is in error and
should allow these options in the Relay-Forw/Relay-Reply. And, the
description of the options should mention that these can also be used by the
relay agent <-> server communication.

But the intent was always there, as shown in Appendix A, to use these
options for the relay agent as well. I think Appendix A is correct and
complete (in terms of the options in the base specification.)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Wing Cheong Lau
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:59 PM
To: Bernie Volz; 'Wing Cheong Lau'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] New draft on DHCPv6 Relay Information Option and
RADIUS Attributes sub-option

At 10:11 AM 10/25/2004, Bernie Volz wrote:

BTW, we don't need a DHCPv6 version of
draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-suboption-00.txt because the existing DHCPv6 Vendor
options can be used by the Relay Agent just fine. Again, it is WHERE these
options appear that indicates whether they are for the client (in the client
part of the message) or the relay, in the Relay-Forw or Relay-Reply part of
the message. That work is already done and is not needed!!
 
- Bernie

I see. However,  the use of such vendor-options by the Relay Agent is kind
of hidden/missing from the current text of RFC 3315.
For example, Sections  22.16 and 22.17 of RFC 3315 only describe the use of
such vendor options by the client and the server. The use of these options
by the relay agent are not mentioned at all. 

While it is true that the table in Appendix A of RFC3315
does say the possible inclusion of the vendor options in the
Relay-Forward/Relay-Reply message,  
the table in Appendix B seems to imply otherwise: 

In the table in Appendix B,  while there are  "*"'s  for the  Relay-Message
and Interface ID rows under
the Relay Forw./Relay Replay columns,  no "*"'s are found  for the Vendor
Class/Vendor Info rows for
the Relay Forw./Relay Replay columns. I think if Relay agent is allowed to
include those vendor options in the
Relay Forw/Replay messages, just like it includes the Interface option,  
the rows for the  Vendor options should look like the row of  the Interface
option.

Am I missing something ? or did I misunderstand the entire meaning of the
table in Appendix B ?
Actually, what does the "Option Field" column in the table mean ?

Also what's the "Note" below the table refers to ?

Would you share more clarification/ insights on this ?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Regards,

Wing 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg