Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

From: "Leaf Yeh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:31:39 -0000

... I'd like we could also update the networking scenario of RFC3633, and
populate it into the draft of DHCPv6bis. 
...In fact, I mean the document of DHCPv6bis needs a diagram for the network
architecture.

Best Regards,
Leaf

-----Original Message-----
From: Leaf Yeh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:02 AM
To: 'Ole Troan'; 'DHC WG'
Cc: 'Ralph Droms (rdroms)'
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

...rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router...

Ole - I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

I support this point. In the scenarios of DHCPv6-PD,

a.  the DHCPv6 server has not always to be a router; b.  the CE router can
be both a requesting router for requesting a prefix in IA_PD, and a client
for requesting an address in IA_NA; in fact, they use the same message from
the same function module, but are in different options.

Best Regards,
Leaf

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:29 AM
To: DHC WG
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

just a perspective on naming and at the risk of bike shedding.

rfc3315 uses client, relay, server
rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router

rfc3633 was written with the expectation that there was no relay, this was
for the purpose of route injection.
actual deployments use relays, and there isn't any special function done on
the delegating router, and no need to have a special name for it.

in 3315bis with prefix delegation being integrated fully into the main DHCP
RFC, I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

cheers,
Ole