Subject: [dhcwg] WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 06:02:20 -0500

Given the positive feedback during the WG meeting on Thu, the authors
would like to request the WG adoption of
draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00. Thanks.

Cheers,
Rajiv

---

From: Leaf yeh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:21:09 +0000

Question for Clarification:

draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00 raised the requirement of configuration on Relay for some specified use case, such as RFC4364, and suggested a new general option for the parameter configuration on the Relay .

But the options for the solution on the parameter configuration on the Relay seems to me are:

the Parameter Request List (option 55) defined in DHCPv4,

"  This option is used by a DHCP client to request values for specified
configuration parameters. The list of requested parameters is
specified as n octets, where each octet is a valid DHCP option code
as defined in this document.

The client MAY list the options in order of preference. The DHCP
server is not required to return the options in the requested order,
but MUST try to insert the requested options in the order requested
by the client.

The code for this option is 55. Its minimum length is 1.

Code 	Len 	Option Codes
| 55 	| n 		| c1 | c2 | ...

cited from RFC2132 section 9.8, 

and the Option Request Option (option 6) defined in DHCPv6, 

"  The Option Request option is used to identify a list of options in a
message between a client and a server. The format of the Option
Request option is:

| OPTION_ORO 			| option-len				|
| requested-option-code-1 	| requested-option-code-2 	|
| ... 

option-code 				OPTION_ORO (6).
option-len 				2 * number of requested options.
requested-option-code-n 	The option code for an option requested by
the client.

A client MAY include an Option Request option in a Solicit, Request,
Renew, Rebind, Confirm or Information-request message to inform the
server about options the client wants the server to send to the
client. A server MAY include an Option Request option in a
Reconfigure option to indicate which options the client should
request from the server.

cited from RFC3315 section 22.7.

The question requesting for the clarification here is what the benefits or advantages could be got from the new suggested option, named relay configuration option, over the potential extending usage on the option 55 defined in DHCPv4 & option 6 defined in DHCPv6? In another word, why we don't use the options already defined for the solution on the parameter configuration on the Relay?

Best Regards,
Leaf

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 7:02 PM
To: Ted Lemon; John Jason Brzozowski
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] WG adoption of draft-asati-dhc-relay-agent-config-00

Cheers,
Rajiv

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