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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 29 August 2013 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 D3A9421F9BBF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 dmBf1AvRBt48 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387F721F9BAD for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r7TAEUU9021815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:14:30 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7TAEUwU008770; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:14:30 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r7TAEE8j022531; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:14:30 +0200
Message-ID: <521F1EF6.5020406@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:14:14 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8166FEF1-0991-4BDF-A35C-6D6E922CF0DD@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEEE4E649@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKOT5Kr_Ve+9taH_AmhUp1HwHY=ggytVjUuToMf2Wr4oKoozOQ@mail.gmail.com>, <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEEE4E6DB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <7B81A958-9434-46B6-973A-D4BD7F2C424F@cisco.com> <521755b2.69d4440a.4d0d.ffff8e59@mx.google.com> <5217763C.8010702@gmail.com> <521f19e4.05c3440a.2ddc.ffff826b@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <521f19e4.05c3440a.2ddc.ffff826b@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:14:39 -0000

Hello Leaf,

Problem statement text in the solution draft is one possible alternative.

Another alternative is to start from scratch a problem statement draft
that would cover the pool-opt draft as well as others mentioned in the
thread.

Not sure which way to go better.

Alex

Le 29/08/2013 11:52, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
> Indeed, the draft might need more text on the Problem Statement for
> the convincing power & easy understanding ...
>
> I guess the PS text should focus on the requirement of route
> aggregation on PE for the customer's PD prefixes and the possible
> solutions ...
>
>
> Best Regards, Leaf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> Friday, August 23, 2013 10:48 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re:
> [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>
> Le 23/08/2013 14:29, Leaf Yeh a écrit : [...]
>> That sounds a new chapter of this draft. I suspect I will have a
>> chance to join. :-) LOL :-)
>
> What would be the toc of this DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation and Relay
> Problem Statement?
>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards, Leaf
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ From:
>> dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:20 PM To:
>> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Cc: Ralph Droms; dhcwg@ietf.org WG
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>>
>> BTW - I think I may have indicated this before, but does this
>> really avoid the need for configuration on the router (relay)? How
>> are items such as the link-address and next hop (dhcp server)
>> addresses configured (rfc 3315 has a multicast default)? So there
>> is still a bunch of "manual" configuration required? Admittedly you
>> do say "more automation" but not really sure that has a lot of
>> value - perhaps we need
> a Dynamic Router Configuration BOF?
>>
>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:15 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"
>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: Hi Roberta,
>>
>> Yes, as indicated in the document, manual configuration is an
>> option. but it has its limits too.
>>
>> This proposal is a contribution to add more automation to network
>> configuration without requiring an additional dynamic protocol to
>> drive how aggregates are built in a router co-located with a
>> requestor, and therefore interact in a more dynamic fashion with a
>> routing protocol (e.g., drive route withdrawals, etc.).
>>
>> Of course, some routers can offer some features to optimize the
>> size of routing tables and prevent from injecting (very) specific
>> entries. But still this behavior is implementation-specific and
>> does not provide the same aggregation level as the one proposed in
>> this document.
>>
>> Unlike implementation-specific behaviors, this proposal is
>> deterministic since it is fully controlled by the entity which has
>> the full knowledge of prefix related states and network policies:
>> e.g., the server has the knowledge of prefix assignment, prefix
>> assignment policies, prefix aggregates, etc.
>>
>> I confirm this option is not a per-customer configuration
>> parameter.
>>
>> Cheers, Med
>>
>>
>> De : Roberta Maglione [mailto:robmgl.ietf@gmail.com] Envoyé : jeudi
>> 22 août 2013 22:31 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Ralph Droms;
>> dhcwg@ietf.org WG Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in
>> continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>>
>> Hello, Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm struggling to see
>> the value added by this new option in terms of route aggregation
>> functionality. Today with IPv4 if I need to summarize some routes I
>> manually configure on the router a summary/aggregate route and I
>> announce it into the routing protocol. Moving to IPv6 you could do
>> the same thing, I don't quite get what's wrong with that? You say
>> you would like to have an automatic way to tell the PE to aggregate
>> the routes, but if I understand correctly the proposal what you are
>> doing here is only moving the configuration of the summary route
>> from the PE to the DHCPv6 Server; what do you really save here? In
>> addition the route aggregation is not a per customer
>> configuration, it would be per box or per service configuration so
>> why do you want to add it to customers' profile in DCHPv6 Server?
>> Thanks Roberta
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>> wrote: Re-,
>>
>> IMHO, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate does not cover the
>> same objectives as in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt.
>>
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt aims to provide a dynamic
>> means to trigger route advertisement actions and to control the
>> route aggregates to be injected using a routing protocol. For
>> example, a router can be told by the DHCP server to advertise an
>> aggregate even if not all individual prefixes are assigned to
>> customer located behind that router. This is a measure that can
>> help in optimizing routing tables and avoid injecting very specific
>> routes. Snooping the assignment and then guide the route
>> advertisement actions may not be lead to the same optimized routing
>> tables, because there will be "holes"
> that will prevent aggregating routes.
>>
>> Having an explicit channel like the one specified in
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior IMHO.
>>
>> Cheers, Med
>>
>>
>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Ralph Droms Envoyé
>>> : jeudi 22 août 2013 14:48 À : Alexandru Petrescu Cc :
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org WG Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in
>>> continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu
>>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> 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, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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 : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 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 dhcwg@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 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 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 mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>