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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.