Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> One point I think is essential is the installment of routes in the DHCP
> Relay upon Prefix Assignment.
> 
> The base DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC does not stipulate that DHCP must
> install a route in the DHCP Relay upon delegation.
> 
> This draft seems to at least assume it, and to describe much more about
> it: how various parts of assigned prefixes are aggregated and communicated.
> 
> I support it.

After a quick read, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate seems to have been aimed at the same problem.  If I have that right, it might be instructive to review the dhc WG mailing list discussion that lead to the abandonment of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate.

- Ralph

> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 21/08/2013 14:41, [e-mail] a écrit :
>> Hi Tomek,
>> 
>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a
>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control
>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of
>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be
>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band
>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the
>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior
>> because the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix assignments;
>> and therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
>> 
>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental
>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real
>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
>> 
>> Cheers, Med
>> 
>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : [e-mail]
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Tomek Mrugalski
>>> Envoyé : lundi 19 août 2013 16:52 À : dhcwg Objet : [dhcwg] Anyone
>>> interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>> 
>>> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in
>>> the prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in
>>> the room. The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I
>>> just wanted to confirm that on the list.
>>> 
>>> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and
>>> participate in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing
>>> list. Otherwise we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead
>>> WG document.
>>> 
>>> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
>>> 
>>> Bernie & Tomek _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg