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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 August 2013 14:48 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 EC12811E80E6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:48:46 -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 LlH4wQU8vBRi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BB511E80D3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r7NEmdLW013693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:48:39 +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 r7NEmdrV025586 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:48:39 +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 r7NEmSVr027747 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:48:39 +0200
Message-ID: <5217763C.8010702@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:48:28 +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: dhcwg@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <521755b2.69d4440a.4d0d.ffff8e59@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:48:47 -0000

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
>
>