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

["Leaf Yeh" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

I can live with either way.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:14 PM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

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: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> Friday, August 23, 2013 10:48 PM To: [e-mail] 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:
>> [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>> Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:20 PM To:
>> [e-mail] Cc: Ralph Droms; [e-mail] 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, "[e-mail]"
>> <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] Envoyé : jeudi
>> 22 août 2013 22:31 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Ralph Droms; 
>> [e-mail] 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, <[e-mail]>
>> 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 : [e-mail] 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Ralph Droms Envoyé
>>> : jeudi 22 août 2013 14:48 À : Alexandru Petrescu Cc :
>>> [e-mail] 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 
>>> <[e-mail]> 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, [e-mail] 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 : [e-mail] 
>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] 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 [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>