Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Bit in "flags" field indicating option overflow?

From: "Kostur, Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:22:19 -0700

A relay isn't allowed to modify the packet other than the GIADDR, and
possible addition of option 82

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:19 AM
> To: Bernie Volz
> Cc: 'Ralph Droms'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Bit in "flags" field indicating option overflow?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Bernie Volz wrote:
> 
> > So we really have three parties involved:
> > 1. What can the client support?
> > 2. What can the server support?
> > 3. What can the relay support?
> >
> > The current max-message-size option addresses the first 
> two. There is
> > nothing that addresses the third issue and a client/server 
> may fail to
> > communicate if the relay doesn't support the larger 
> messages. Perhaps we
> > need a "relay-max-message-size" option that can override a client's
> > max-message-size option if the relay isn't able to support 
> the client's
> > maximum?
> 
> Why have a special option for case 3 ? The relay may check if 
> the client's
> max-message-size option is there and modify it in transit if the value
> is too high for the relay to handle. This option is usually not stored
> in the server, so the server will use the 'real' client 
> max-message-size
> value in ACKs sent directly to the client and the modified 
> one when responding
> through the relay.
> 
> 	-Patrick
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>