Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
xiayangsong <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6DE68@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com> |
Hi Tomek Thank your response. Please check my comments inline. BR Frank -----Original Message----- From: Tomasz Mrugalski [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:40 AM To: xiayangsong Cc: MEXT WG; Behcet Sarikaya Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments On 2011-03-18 00:13, xiayangsong wrote: > Please see my inline comments... > > BR > Frank > I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay > Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options > is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options, > as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You > would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients > typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats. > Frank=>Just I explained aforementioned, we need define DHCPv4 option for > carrying home agents information(such as IPv6 addresses). We can't encapsulate > DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options because the client is DHCPv4 only. Agree. I maybe didn't express myself clearly. DHCPv6 options must not be encapsulated in DHCPv4 options. Frank=>Agree. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the authors, so let me explain how I read the draft: draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01, section 4.2 defines DSMIPv6 Relay Agent Option (a DHCPv4 Option) that contains sub-options field. Its content is defined as "A series of sub-options as specified in I-D.ietf-mip6-hiopt". ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 defines couple DHCPv6 options. I'm not sure how can this be interpreted otherwise than an attempt to encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions within DHCPv4 option. Frank=>Sorry for the confusion we introduced. Actually, we related our draft to ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 just because they have similar scenarios. Our draft was supposed to define an independent set of DHCPv4 options. > At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including > OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay? > Frank=>Access routers as DHCP relay and DHCPv4 servers includes the option. I think this should be clarified in the draft. Frank=>We will add this. Hope that helps, Tomek