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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 C009921F8793 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 FFrxUn2JekPW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1E321F9DD0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3856; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377178386; x=1378387986; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WBn2uOndugXMBoNO4c223l6aHWW8NOpUxWu6Gw+XNmA=; b=lN2WJs7e3ognM3bAxYy41UEBagc5/jnfkPNAhQgtdnTysQOgmf6FF7cF Y588bo6GTmA+5+liSDHyrFSOpHJ3ZxqWTsf6goFicVgyNNnsmVsszAndV DudnKGdA4So8vtjcNDVsvbXlwBU3NX3ygxT02sVqyD951KmTKCNbrloU0 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FADESFlKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABagwU1UcAIgR0WdIIkAQEBBAEBATc0FwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJByEGCxQJCAEBBAESCBOHYwMPDKx5DYF8BI1tgkg4BoMVewOVfY4ahSmBZIE7gis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,934,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="250440053"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 13:33:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7MDX5Et024725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.201]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:33:05 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>, "'Sten Carlsen'" <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: Ac6fLc16ZvW6jHPiTlyPCKt/DeDoegAAeGXgAAMGN8A=
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:04 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E186A66DC@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FA8A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAC8QAcfaT2c3j1aFS0Qf2bieRs_MH1xov7CjE0POhMnU75YuiA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com> <5215FAF6.6060405@s-carlsen.dk> <521610a4.0466420a.469b.ffff9582@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <521610a4.0466420a.469b.ffff9582@mx.google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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, 22 Aug 2013 13:33:18 -0000

Leaf ... the relay technically isn't snooping. It is relaying (it has to process these messages -- they are not just going through the relay). The snooping part is that it is looking inside the client part of the message. This was what agentopt was trying to avoid (and also trying to permit slightly different information going to the relay -- not just what went to the client).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leaf Yeh
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:23 AM
To: 'Sten Carlsen'; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

Sten - ... snooping sounds to me like a stop gap solution .

Per my understanding about the implementation (or behavior) of the PE router of today, it (or it's CPU) snoops & handles every protocol message in the control (and management) plane in fact.


Best Regards,
Leaf



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sten Carlsen
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:50 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

I may easily be wrong here but snooping sounds to me like a stop gap solution i.e. what you do when no better method is available?

Seen from outside (my chair) it looks like there might be a need for a protocol to talk directly with the switch/router, possibly first passing a control/admin system that controls what may be set up in various places in the network.

On 22/08/13 12:55, Leaf Yeh wrote:
Ted - This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents _already_ snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.

I remember Ted has a discussion with WG-RTGWG on this topic in its session of IETF84, and we had an additional discussion on the ML of Routing-Discussion. Per these discussion records before and the personal feedback from Adrian (RTG-AD), my conclusion (or impression) sounds that 'use DHCPv6 to add & withdraw route on the PE router' will get rough consensus (or will not irritate big controversy) in IETF.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:29 AM
To: <sarikaya@ieee.org>rg>; Behcet Sarikaya
Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't it not good to use DHCP options to establish routes? Remember what happened to

It's not possible to get IETF consensus on a DHCP option to deliver routes
to clients.   I never said it was an inherently bad idea.   The reason I
asked MIF to stop working on it was that the endless floggings were getting
in the way of doing real work.   Really, preventing us from doing real work
at all.

This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents _already_ snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.

_______________________________________________
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


--
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg