Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 0082011E826C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 05:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4B-tevsCyMr for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 05:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x22c.google.com (mail-qe0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2667A11E81B4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 05:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 3so450127qeb.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 05:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=aoBssm/9eQt0s8B4zAOT824FURpmQSwt/rwET7PIISs=; b=ueyZcJJJ+W5xyURr1C8G84HllIxkbSaA+R+Fr8goM4vYRtAMfgHVkMvIVMDBVeE+by gd1bLJBksqYKxB0/YFYv3HrFQSuHsuRicPLkprq8RIrcGXUcbSoT6/sXvwXGFRp96NY4 9xZEpJA28b8etna1NdTnWvYyfqLvcf1BtxC668981s8mfXpy+Jkt85TlVjexmNWwN0aG ucJulwQmS6EyK0xMisMi4DoQJKaqrVIN/6k0WRE3wn3hVXBPEjOZKQRGavUdeq7vZLHs fjIeEtRGri+A3p+LPf9FK3jTrQfUuirImorTSWHuBY2ZopGq8f9adC0qDhm/j4VW/4nu TOXw==
X-Received: by 10.49.109.170 with SMTP id ht10mr2224940qeb.27.1380716156921; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 05:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-rdroms-89110.cisco.com (rtp-isp-nat1.cisco.com. [64.102.254.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm4381512qad.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2013 05:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <524aecd4.69d4440a.25d9.ffffba0c@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:15:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BA824D8E-CAC6-434C-860F-3D23873C9016@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>, <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org> <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com> <52306010.4090001@gmail.com> <5E91E9B8-6E22-46DD-A687-B4983BD0B508@gmail.com> <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com> <52402AF3.8010407@gmail.com> <5240486E.20501@gmail.com> <52405701.9070506@gmail.com> <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com> <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com> <6690AA2A-BB92-45BE-A66C-8BFFE5A441F2@gmail.com> <5242CADB.5040000@gmail.com> <E3BEE054-842E-4DC6-B0E7-9018F24E3263@gmail.com> <524aecd4.69d4440a.25d9.ffffba0c@mx.google.com>
To: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:16:30 -0000
On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:39 AM 10/1/13, Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> wrote: > Ralph - How does the Access Router know the route through the RR to the PC? > I thought that was the information that needs to be installed on the Access > Router. > > I guess Ole's answer in the thread of 'Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and > RFC 3633 to Internet Standard' was '...everyone does this with snooping > today...' But that's snooping on the device on which the relay agent runs. In the diagram we're discussing, the Access Router doesn't have a relay agent and wouldn't snoop. - Ralph > > > Best Regards, > Leaf > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ralph Droms > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:18 AM > To: Alexandru Petrescu > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard > > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:36 PM 9/25/13, Alexandru Petrescu > <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Le 24/09/2013 22:43, Ralph Droms a écrit : >>> >>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:35 PM 9/24/13, Alexandru Petrescu > <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Le 24/09/2013 10:32, Ralph Droms a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:58 PM 9/23/13, Alexandru Petrescu >>>>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 23/09/2013 15:55, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit : >>>>>>> On 23.09.2013 13:50, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2013 19:57, Leaf Yeh a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Ralph > The piece of network equipment that implements the >>>>>>>>> relay agent routes, and that network equipment *might* also >>>>>>>>> need a route. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the PE router implementing relay for DHCPv6-PD, it always >>>>>>>>> needs add the associated route for the CE's network of >>>>>>>>> delegated prefix. I can't see *might* here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with the doubt. I don't see a might, but rather a must. >>>>>>>> Otherwise it doesn't work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But maybe I dont understand the word 'might' as a native speaker >>>>>>>> could hear it. >>>>>>> Relay agent is functionality that can be provided by a piece of >>>>>>> software. You can run it on any box that is connected to more >>>>>>> than one network. Although typically such a box serves as a >>>>>>> router, it doesn't have to. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean a Relay agent which runs on a pure Host (single real >>>>>> interface, no additional virtual/real interfaces)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Even in that case it (or the Router on the same link which is >>>>>> connected to the Internet) will need to install a route towards >>>>>> the Requesting Router's interface for the delegated prefix. >>>>> >>>>> And there's the exact point of the discussion - if the relay agent >>>>> is not implemented on the router that needs the route, passing the >>>>> route in the DHCPv6 message exchange through the relay agent won't >>>>> get the route to the appropriate router. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In all cases, the Relay and other routers on that link MUST >>>>>> install a route. >>>>> >>>>> And how does that route get to the other routers? >>>> >>>> They are all on the same link, and one mechanism used to install >>>> routes dynamically is during ICMP Redirect. >>> >>> According to RFC 4861, sec. 8.2, routers ignore ICMPv6 Redirect messages: >>> >>> A router MUST NOT update its routing tables upon receipt of a >>> Redirect. >>> >>> I don't recall if that text is updated by subsequent RFCs. >> >> I don't know either whether subsequent RFCs update it, or whether linux > has knobs allowing that - one should check. >> >> And, what I meant is not a necessarily a Router but maybe a Host > DHCPRelay: >> ________ ---------- >> | |DHCPServer| >> ... ---------- >> | >> ---------- --------- >> | Host | | Access | >> | DHCPRelay| | Router | >> ---------- --------- >> | | >> ----+--------------+ >> | >> ---------- ---- >> |Requesting| | PC | >> | Router | | | >> ---------- ---- >> | | >> ----+------------+-- >> >> After the PD phase, and after the assumed route insertion in Access > Router, the Host DHCPRelay would get an ICMPRedirect from the Access Router > whenever wanting to talk to PC. The route it installs is for the Delegated > Prefix. > > The "Host DHCPRelay" has to be on the same link with the PC. > > How does the Access Router know the route through the RR to the PC? I > thought that was the information that needs to be installed on the Access > Router. > > - Ralph > >> >> (the topology above has some advantages in terms of rapid deployment of > DHCPv6 in a hostpot network). >> >> Alex >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> Whether they do it at allocation time, at ICMP Redirect time, or >>>>>> at manual config time - is another matter. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not saying the route installation can't be accomplished through >>>>> DHCPv6. I think you'll need to address the specific issues I >>>>> raised in previous e-mail to publish a specification for passing >>>>> routing information to the appropriate router through a DHCPv6 >>>>> message exchange with a host. >>>> >>>> Ok, my point is whether or not we could formulate a problem >>>> statement for this: there is a need for a route in the concerned >>>> routers, after the PD operation. Without that route the >>>> communication can't be established between Hosts configured with an >>>> address prefixed by the delegated prefix. >>> >>> I agree that there is a need for the route to exist and an appropriate > problem statement could be formulated. >>> >>> - Ralph >>> >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Ralph >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Without that route the whole schmillblick doesn't work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list >>>>>> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >
- [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Intern… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- [dhcwg] Fwd: Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to I… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] errata to RFC 3633: s/provider edge r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] errata to RFC 3633: s/provider edge r… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Ralph Droms