Ahh Alper email from you again. I am certainly not going to spend
time sluggin away joylessly with you. I think we
can take it as read that you will always hate it.
For the other folk I had a brief summary of the changes almost
finished for dhcwg list which I have now send.
On 25/07/2008, at 7:41 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Now that I see this proposal is back on stage (for the 5th time
now), let's
see if we can get answers to some fundamental issues.
Last time I had sent a long list of issues, and there was no response.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg01255.html
Let's start just looking at the issues about Figure 3...
- What is the DHCP-wise functionality of the NAS? Text claims it is
a "DHCP
relay" but I see it terminating some of the DHCP messages and also
generating some other messages. This is not compliant with DHCP.
As we explained to you many times most vendors BRAS's act as a DHCP
proxy and terminate all messages and look like a server to the client.
- How does the NAS handle EAP retransmissions? It needs to send
unsolicited
DHCP messages to the DHCP client. This is not compliant with DHCP.
Actually that issue is open and we can discuss what a compliant
implementation would mean in terms of retransmission timers so that
right thing always happens at the right layer.
- I see NAS inserting additional DHCP option (EAP Success) on
DHCPOFFER as
it forwards that message from DHCP server to DHCP client. This again
breaks
DHCP.
As we explained to you many times most vendors BRAS's act as a DHCP
proxy and terminate all messages and look like a server to the client.
Lets take this to the dhcwg list as that is where the review happens
next week.
- Ric
Alper
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
