Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

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.

Best Regards,
Leaf

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:35 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms; Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:20 AM 9/11/13, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our Relay Agents all route.

As Bernie wrote, relay agents don't route.  The piece of network equipment
that implements the relay agent routes, and that network equipment *might*
also need a route.

One of the issues we talked about in the dhc WG is that, in fact, a route
might need to be installed in some equipment that is not on the
client-server path.

So, yeah, perhaps s/provider edge router/some network equipment/ or even
s/provider edge router/the network/

- Ralph

> 
> We are not a provider.  Our edge network is itself made of a few other
smaller Access Networks, for mobility experimentation.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 11/09/2013 14:13, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
>> And relay agents don't route so why would they technically care about 
>> routing? The relay agent is usually co-located on a provider edge 
>> router and certainly these components often need to communicate.
>> Thus, I don't think replacing with relay agent would be correct.
>> 
>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:04 AM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alexandru,
>>> 
>>>>>> In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the term 
>>>>>> 'provider edge router.' in a section describing the behaviour of 
>>>>>> the Relay agent:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 14.  Relay agent behavior
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A relay agent forwards messages containing Prefix Delegation 
>>>>>> options in the same way as described in section 20, "Relay Agent 
>>>>>> Behavior" of RFC 3315.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router 
>>>>>> through a relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol 
>>>>>> or other out-of-band communication to add routing information for 
>>>>>> delegated prefixes into the provider edge router.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by that 
>>>>>> 'provider edge router'. Because otherwise the term doesn't appear 
>>>>>> elsewhere in the document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Assuming you meant RFC3633) Yes, s/provider edge router/relay 
>>>>> agent/
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I meant RFC3633, and yes s/provider edge router/relay agent.
>>>> 
>>>> That would make for an errata that one could suggest in the errata 
>>>> site?
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure I see what difference it would make?
>>> 
>>>>>> Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol is 
>>>>>> needed between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean that 
>>>>>> inserting a routing table should happen by that 'out-of-band' 
>>>>>> means (and not 'out-of-band communication')?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not speaking for Ole, I meant that some other means, which might 
>>>>> be a protocol, manual configuration, etc., is needed to add 
>>>>> routing information into the relay agent.
>>>> 
>>>> In that sense I agree with it.  It is thus a problem that is 
>>>> already explicit in this RFC.
>>> 
>>> everyone does this with snooping today, but that's not covered by 
>>> any RFC. the closest we got to exploring the options was in
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-pd-route-maintenance-00
>>> 
>>> cheers, Ole
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

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