Subject: [dhcwg] Agenda for IETF-69 dhc WG meeting

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:17:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all,
  Let me write here what I proposed during the session today in hopes to stir some discussion:
In RFC 3633, IAID is defined as 4 octet field to be the unique identifier for each IA_PD. 
In view of per-Mobile Node prefix delegation, I suggest that we extend IAID to be 6 octets and use MAC address of MN for which the prefix is requested. This way the access router can keep track of each prefix it receives by associating the prefix with the MAC address. 
  IA_PD could be easily redefined to add  one more line  and make IAID to be 6 octets with the remaining to bytes reserved and the overall option length to become 16+IA_PD options.
  In case MAC address can not be used, it is possible to convert mobile equipment IDs to 6 octet MAC-like addresses (for 3GPP and 3GPP2 links).
  Your comments on this would be highly appreciated.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 5:19:45 AM
Subject: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* Agenda for IETF-69 dhc WG meeting

Draft agenda is included below.  Please contact the chairs if you  
have a topic to be added to the agenda.

                        DHC WG DRAFT agenda - IETF 67
                         0900-1130 2007-07-23 (Mon)
                    (Last revised 2007-07-21 06:16 AM ET)
                    -------------------------------------

Administrivia                                   Venaas/Droms     10  
minutes
   Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe

Draft last call and adoption announcements      Venaas/Droms     05  
minutes

Progressing two drafts under RFC 3942           R. Droms         10  
minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-05>
   <draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-02>

Update to DHCP options guideline                D. Hankins       05  
minutes
   <draft-dhankins-dhcp-option-guidelines-00>
   Accept as WG work item?

Using DHCPv6 and AAA Server for mobile station PD
                                                 B. Sarikaya      15  
minutes
   <draft-sarikaya-16ng-prefix-delegation-01>
   WG input on DHCP-related I-D

Layer 2 relay agent and relay agent chaining    P. Kurapati      15  
minutes
   <draft-joshi-dhc-layer2-relay-agent-01>
   <draft-kurapati-dhc-relay-chaining-dhcpv4-01>
   Adopt as WG work items?

TAHI DHCPv6 Test tool for IPv6 Ready Logo       Hideshi E.       05  
minutes

Extensions to DHCPv6 for prefix and default router information
                                                 T. Chown         10  
minutes
   Initial discussion
                                                                  
-----------
                                                                  75  
minutes

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

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:42:38 -0500

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 20:17 -0700, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> In view of per-Mobile Node prefix delegation, I suggest that we extend
> IAID to be 6 octets and use MAC address of MN for which the prefix is
> requested. This way the access router can keep track of each prefix it
> receives by associating the prefix with the MAC address. 

Why not make the IAID 16 octets, just in case we have a link with a
fatter address, or want to stuff a UUID in it or something?   Or we
could have it be arbitrrily long.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but just to illustrate the problem with
this kind of thinking.   It really can't work.   The reason we chose a
four-byte IAID was to allow for a 32-bit interface index, not to allow
you to put a client-sourced identifier in it.

The question that comes to my mind with this proposal is, why not just
have the device that's getting the delegated prefix make the DHCP prefix
delegation request?   Why all this additional complexity?

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:38:48 -0500

> In RFC 3633, IAID is defined as 4 octet field to be the unique identifier for each IA_PD. 

This is correct, but misleading.  The IAID is a discriminator for each
IA_PD (if there are more than one) within the context of each
identified client (as per the client identifier).

The IAID is not globally unique.  It is locally unique for each
unique client identifier.

In your presentation, you describe that a relay agent is mocking up a
client to represent each point to point remote client.  It most
closely resembles what we call DHCPv6 to select a client identifier
that identifies each remote client (rather than placing them all
under one identifier).

I'm sorry if you're in a pinch and you have to use one client
identifier for all clients.  That's a problem.  I don't think
we should change IA_PD to accomodate that problem.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg