Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023
Bernie Volz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dhc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
See below. - Bernie > On Dec 26, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you want to report upstream, why not just relay the notification? > > a) because often the local server actually needs to keep it's own database. > There’s no reason the notification cannot be consumed both locally and forwarded. Obviously the forwarded request’s reply likely should be dropped if a locally generated reply is being sent - but that’s easy enough for relay to handle by adding something into the Interface ID option? > b) because it might need to filter based upon which addresses are being > reported about. For instance, filter out ULAs, but keep GUAs. > No reason that device couldn’t filter out ones it doesn’t want to relay. > c) it seems to me like the local server should perhaps be taking > responsability for the delivery. > That is perhaps the one benefit for not relaying (see a) but I guess you could change it so relayed Reply is delivered back to client (not local one). This mechanism isn’t expected to be perfect since it may be a while before clients even add the support (and some may never). > but, I agree that relaying upstream might be the better solution. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg