From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: =?Windows-1252?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Call for	Adoption:
 draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
Thread-Index: AQHNilxkzqWc/Q9DJ0mcHtn1PhlGPpd6qseAgAArj4CAABP1gA==
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:43:47 +0000
Message-ID: <FDF07965-FE45-4A36-8563-EFD748351A39@nominum.com>
References: <91484F36-D059-4D90-8BFE-60434864A579@nominum.com>
 <6B6C7CCC-0971-4CD1-BC2F-849F6BDC1863@employees.org>
 <5044C350.4010403@gmail.com>
 <E666D4CA7557D04DB6B9B2BA6DC28F3D285C2A36F8@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
 <6C1B27BB-3FBD-4046-9923-0FE6080D8AEC@nominum.com>
 <22044EFB-C429-4CF9-A2BB-23EFE1331A24@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <22044EFB-C429-4CF9-A2BB-23EFE1331A24@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <5A79DAE5317A6449AF7B8EACFD0B3B22@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for	Adoption:	draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
Precedence: list

On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Ole Tr=F8an <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> fate sharing of what? the client functions independently of whatever aggr=
egate route there is for a whole block of subscribers. this just adds anoth=
er cog in the machinery that may fail.

Fate sharing in the sense that the DHCP server is best able to know from wh=
at aggregate prefix prefixes for clients on a particular router will be all=
ocated, and the DHCP packet is the way these prefixes get allocated to the =
client.   So we can be sure that if the network is working at all, it will =
be working completely.

> this does not solve the DHCPv6 PD problem of route injection. a route nee=
ds to be installed per client, and snooping is still needed for that. this =
proposal _only_ solves the problem of installing an aggregate route for mul=
tiple PD RRs into a PE/relay. this is most typically done with static confi=
guration today.

It solves half the problem: configuring the route that the router advertise=
s.   You are correct that it doesn't solve the other half=97figuring out wh=
ere to send packets downstream.   But actually, snooping the DHCP packet is=
 a perfectly good solution for this problem; what is lacking is a standard =
that says how it's done.=20

What snooping is _not_ good for is figuring out what route to advertise ups=
tream.   To say that the upstream route is currently done with static confi=
guration is synonymous with saying that the problem is currently unsolved.