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

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Sun, 22 September 2013 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.yeh.sdo@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 7EF1211E810D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 y88aYn7-a46e for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A359621F8F4A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q10so2340284pdj.35 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=/D48j0Puo/a7YJNVwnsgcmEHl1u3oWR1lwyxt4uSoi4=; b=hcEKfSaWJCtCNkSxmi/yyZY15W4xePXCJkjpEiKGG1zMyuZrBCqiPq1xm/0midYVfq 90jeruIbC5qcue0ATFkteWnR3ImR4thL3eXESidTbIZs2gb96r5kdACz20+9bMZ7MnZi +iAUAtbV8JCJFGeUjUxBn8jXpJfrTxzxhPlBrhYM6iiqPOJpmUQCRflfLaBOCe1RsBNa 50EevyT1GToUPCpsWJe1BJeOmMufLtZko0XY6B9pjv2r4Ds9IW/OmreDcL32D2hzR0Hd LPTLtQIg2homv/43T/q/1RGfJ2ObC4zLlly3yh/ol34lgsRY/BMW0bTIynW2AqbYm8og QyRQ==
X-Received: by 10.67.11.103 with SMTP id eh7mr2263769pad.153.1379872676079; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PC ([14.153.97.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ve9sm29079060pbc.19.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@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>
In-Reply-To: <5E91E9B8-6E22-46DD-A687-B4983BD0B508@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:57:48 +0800
Message-ID: <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac6u604H0f/Gg+HVQmq0d5RvIraThgAGV4qQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "'Bernie Volz \(volz\)'" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and 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: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:57:57 -0000

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