I don't appreciate your comments. Let's stay on the technical course. > > 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.
That's not accurate according to Figure 3. I see "some" DHCP messages terminating on the NAS (e.g., DHCPEAP*) and "others" going through (e.g., DHCPDISCOVER) within the same DHCP flow. I don't think it is as simple as your two-sentence explanation anyways. As requested earlier, IETF needs to see a document where this DHCP proxy model is defined. I'm aware of one DHCP proxy model and it is nothing like what your document is suggesting. Can you please send us a document that describes the DHCP proxy model? IETF needs to buy in the DHCP proxy model before any other proposal built on top of that gets accepted. > > - 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. OK, please explain. > > - 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. Again, NAS does not really terminate "all" messages (see above). And this "box in the middle" inserting DHCP options towards the DHCP client breaks DHCP. > Lets take this to the dhcwg list as that is where the review happens > next week. Really? What happened to the escalation of this discussion to int-area and the outcome of the poll from last IETF? I hope Jari can clarify this. Alper > > - 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
