Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738C621E8040 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC=0.353, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS=0.801]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGUXDQgNx9Pd for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBAE21E8034 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so4157036pbb.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=Dh03UjFhw7cUaZg1wFgT9+aHfTSmjhpGEoMcE0ORioc=; b=wTPgiyqzXe+N4qFbn9sjMiTeXcp6JvcwmzdEBgDNFaak6y6jGF0fg0ZtZIvcztZIXf esxpMENeJyFL9IWeX8TlHIJLpgkBofPGULIxCtvJZ83sRXqI48R3+Sc2CUdKoY5t9HTG 4pUiGZe+Bz8MPHnxWDMvD2Qz3SyIZnDmys4xrp6J/2hKIWQ/8/B/IZGqJyL7CKP0BUGx /7RcZIihAAqHa+2H+JXwsibkhVrG+drsDk+APfbMwO5Btdq+bBBx4EYR0z9tAVhBYD2p kWslnxkF85lfYGLjMfdFZ9LDsxLRvhKnGxnCQZQkWJg6AdnZ/sfZuCzd46B9auXOEODP D3Jw==
Received: by 10.68.203.196 with SMTP id ks4mr10347252pbc.107.1347034013734; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lst9242355d22a ([218.18.199.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jz4sm3354646pbc.17.2012.09.07.09.06.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: 'Ole Trøan' <otroan@employees.org>, 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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> <5049E443.5040305@gmail.com> <48CC6041-9BAA-4D92-A13E-307BB7CBA459@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <48CC6041-9BAA-4D92-A13E-307BB7CBA459@employees.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:06:51 +0800
Message-ID: <504a1b9c.64c9440a.61e1.4dfe@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac2NDcOj8ferFqxnQde+rWTnvY/GkQAAfV3w
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:06:55 -0000

Ole - the _aggregate route_ (i.e the route covering the PD prefixes)
installation and redistribution in an IGP is typically done with manual
configuration on the PEs.
route injection by PD itself, is typically done by DHCP snooping.

Agreed the above if we don't have draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL). :-)

DHCPv6-PD inject the dynamic routes per the lease of delegated prefixes,
while the draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL) help to inject the *dynamic*
aggregation route per the *status* of the prefix pool. (See the definition
of *status* in Section 4 ) 

All the configuration for the necessary aggregation routes (on the relay)
per the prefix pools (and its status) turns to be automatic after employing
the mechanism newly introduced in this draft.


Best Regards,
Leaf


-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ole Tr?an
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:31 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption:
draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08

Alex,

[...]

>> this does not solve the DHCPv6 PD problem of route injection. a route 
>> needs to be installed per client, and snooping is still needed for 
>> that. this proposal _only_ solves the problem of installing an 
>> aggregate route for multiple PD RRs into a PE/relay.
> 
> In a sense I agree - this proposal seems to still require snooping.
> (i.e. existing single prefixes in PD require snooping and pool-opt 
> draft requires it too).
> 
>> this is most typically done with static configuration today.
> 
> Well no, static configuration at Relay is not sufficient for PD to 
> work, even if we dont talk pool-opt draft - there is a need of that 
> route at Relay.  There is no other solution to that than DHCP Relay to 
> become more intelligent (i.e. "snoop").

the _aggregate route_ (i.e the route covering the PD prefixes) installation
and redistribution in an IGP is typically done with manual configuration on
the PEs.

route injection by PD itself, is typically done by DHCP snooping.

cheers,
Ole