Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Questions about layer two relay agents in dhcpv4...

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:39:31 -0700

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:09:10AM +0530, Bharat Joshi wrote:
> > Personally, I'd like to see the l2ra draft aimed at standards track, and
> > specifying the correct way to do l2ra, rather than, as it does now,
> > simply documenting various implementation strategies, some of which are
> > clearly (to me!) broken.
> 
> We can surely do that if every body agrees to it.

I am very happy that the l2ra draft was undertaken, it is very useful
to have these things described and examined, but most importantly
written down.

I'd be equally pleased if an "L2RA Protocol" standards-track document
were started, but due to my nascient cynicism as to the rate at which
good ideas become RFC's around here, I'd personally suggest we take
the current draft to RFC and start a second piece of work for the
standard protocol.

-- 
David W. Hankins	BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer		There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		http://bind10.isc.org/

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:15:59 -0700

> the current draft to RFC and start a second piece of work for the

I should say that the current relay agent encapsulation draft essentially defines a standards-track l2ra solution, because it was necessary to make the draft work.   It is conceivable that it could be teased out into a separate draft, although that's less easy than I originally anticipated.   As I've mentioned before, I'd be interested in working with the authors of the current l2ra draft to see if they think this is possible.