Subject: RE: DHCPv6 Relay Changes

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:02:13 -0400

Excellent point. Or perhaps limit the number of hops allowed? Perhaps a
solution is to have a relay add a hop count option and other relays to
increment (or decrement) this. Once the limit is exceeded, the packet is
dropped.

Note that subsequent relays may add little, if anything, to the packets
since there may be little need for them to encapsulate (though I believe
we're assuming at present that all relays would encapsulate?).

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:43 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: RE: DHCPv6 Relay Changes

> DHCPv6 relay agents will forward messages beetween clients and servers
> using "DHCP-in-DHCP encapsulation".

If the configuration of the relay(s) is incorrect, you could potential
end up with recursive encapsulation.
It would probably make sense to prevent this e.g. with an upper bound on
the message size.

  Erik

---

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:33:26 -0400

While one could require that the outer most relays know all, I think it
would be appropriate to allow forwarding toward the inner relays (to the
final server). This allows for far simplier configuration of devices as you
move out from the core of the network.

It likely also has some benefits in terms of firewalls and the like. 

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 6:41 AM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 Relay Changes

What is the benefit in allowing recursive enacapsulation through
multiple relay agents? Would it make sense to simplify things and
simply say there can be at most one relay agent in the path, and the
relay agent always forwards the packet to a DHCP server (or an entity
that looks like the server from a protocol perspective)?

Thomas