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

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2013 15:10 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 F1FB811E80E0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:10:22 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 y3lWvm0jXigU for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085A21F9FA2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz10so5290378pad.30 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:10:21 -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=yn5B+lxXwaZwFwDhvwdEIRyBH4jsUOtGRa+qUHvaoys=; b=Vk1YLGRp+w7lJ6EtFP5eJERehmKomuhNZvt1qDQ5P8mHrBB0E0L0MQTdKQ1gHTYihD XqguG2iO3GQrdmpRIivczhEx06OmfjTVbK9RIvu+gZQCPuom2yFCYXEzLJyx5PhIydHt RAE0YBlnXk7HRkHjLTSsGDFDqbgnmDzMLSZKJhWjo6WeOsw7PLeUw2OsbS3qs8QlcYAh VabkOWAnCzE0i4lzX4pTKqzA/39f0lmmFexATn+eI4rWiUXdqa9AfeqBsfHa4Yp9yt3q vdjJxU+JUn3kX9WT7YhH8ghs26Iry4Qw8zsy2kOzAKtGTq9dOFc6UbO7NslRD+fjWgFJ kWVg==
X-Received: by 10.68.134.98 with SMTP id pj2mr22952785pbb.110.1378134621684; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PC ([111.193.199.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id iu7sm16427560pbc.45.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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> <5217763C.8010702@gmail.com> <521f19e4.05c3440a.2ddc.ffff826b@mx.google.com> <521F1EF6.5020406@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <521F1EF6.5020406@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 23:10:14 +0800
Message-ID: <5224aa5c.87c5440a.79b1.1656@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: Ac6koI28tEWj7OHkR2iKEOAiYYqWuQDBghYA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:10:23 -0000

Hi Alex,

I can live with either way.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:14 PM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> Friday, August 23, 2013 10:48 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org 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:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>