Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 25 September 2013 11:27 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 5B91E21F9702 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.649, 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 tUOY3jKqEgDj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA6521F9611 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r8PBRHxq030035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:27:17 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8PBRGVu019828; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:27:16 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r8PBREGk011059; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:27:16 +0200
Message-ID: <5242C892.4020008@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:27:14 +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: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@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> <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com> <52402AF3.8010407@gmail.com> <5240486E.20501@gmail.com> <52405701.9070506@gmail.com> <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com> <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com> <5241b722.c467440a.7dd8.ffff8e3c@mx.google.com> <5241C0B6.9040200@gmail.com> <52428618.21ab440a.16d7.62d5@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <52428618.21ab440a.16d7.62d5@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route
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: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:27:25 -0000
Hi Leaf, I am not sure there exists a term 'DHCPv6 Requestor' as depicted below. Also, the Relay Agent is separated from the Requesting Router by at most 1-hop. The Relay Agent and the RR must be Neighbors in terms of ND, I think. But the figure shows one Access Network, which I dont know what you mean. If you mean a point-to-point link (like PPP protocol) then I agree with it, because it is just 1-hop. But if you mean a complex graphs of IP routers and many hops then I don't know whether it works. But I agree with the figure overall, it is one potential deployment. Alex Le 25/09/2013 08:43, Leaf Yeh a écrit : > I suppose the network scenario on this topic, i.e. routing issue associated > with the DHCPv6-PD, is the same as that of > ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-04. > > Draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-03 has 2 Network Architectures for the > scenario discussion. One is as follows > > +------+------+ DHCPv6 Server > | DHCPv6 | (e.g. Binding entry: > | Server | Relay=nfi-GUA#2, > | | Interface-ID=cfi#3, > +------+------+ Prefix Pool=2001:db8:1200::/40) > | > _________|_________ > / \ > | ISP Core Network | > \___________________/ > | > | > | Network-facing interface > | (e.g. IPv6 address=nfi-GUA#2) > +------+------+ > | Provider | > | Edge | DHCPv6 Relay Agent, DHCPv6 Requestor > | Router | > +------+------+ > | Customer-facing interface > | (e.g. Interface-ID=cfi#3) > | Prefix Pool=2001:db8:1200::/40) > _________|_________ > / \ > | Access Network | > \___________________/ > | > | > +------+------+ > | Customer | DHCPv6 Client > | Edge | DHCPv6-PD Requesting Router > | Router | (e.g. customer network > +------+------+ =2001:db8:1234:5600:/56) > | > _________|_________ > / \ > | Customer Network | > \___________________/ > > > Best Regards, > Leaf > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:41 AM > To: Leaf Yeh > Cc: 'Ralph Droms'; dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: discussion about PD-Relay-route > > Le 24/09/2013 18:00, Leaf Yeh a écrit : >> Ralph > And how does that route get to the other routers? >> >> Alexandru > They are all on the same link, and one mechanism used to >> install routes dynamically is during ICMP Redirect. >> >> Are you talking about the following network structure? > > In that figure, Router-A has an additional link towards the Internet. > And Router-B runs the Relay software, and has only one link - as pictured. > > There is no term 'Delegated Router' (sorry no offence :-). There is a > 'Delegating Router' and that should be the DHCPServer situated deep in the > infrastructure (please draw it). > > Also, the 'CE Router/RR' has an additional link to other Hosts which use the > delegated prefix to configure addresses for selves. It's the local LAN, of > which that RR is in charge of. > > In that case - yes, I think such a figure is good for some deployments for > reasons I could describe. > > Yours, > > Alex > >> >> mailbox:///C:/data/imap-cea-start7sept2011/ietf.sbd/ietf-dhcwg?number= >> 56814925&header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.png >> >> Only Router-A acts as the DR. >> >> Is this structure important in your mind? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Leaf >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> >> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu >> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:35 PM >> To: Ralph Droms >> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org> WG >> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet >> Standard >> >> Le 24/09/2013 10:32, Ralph Droms a écrit : >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:58 PM 9/23/13, Alexandru Petrescu >> >>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Le 23/09/2013 15:55, Tomek Mrugalski aécrit : >> >>>>> On 23.09.2013 13:50, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> >>>>>> Le 22/09/2013 19:57, Leaf Yeh aécrit : >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I agree with the doubt. I don't see a might, but rather a must. >> >>>>>> Otherwise it doesn't work. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> But maybe I dont understand the word 'might' as a native speaker >> >>>>>> could hear it. >> >>>>> Relay agent is functionality that can be provided by a piece of >> >>>>> software. You can run it on any box that is connected to more than >> >>>>> one network. Although typically such a box serves as a router, it >> >>>>> doesn't have to. >> >>>> >> >>>> You mean a Relay agent which runs on a pure Host (single real >> >>>> interface, no additional virtual/real interfaces)? >> >>>> >> >>>> Even in that case it (or the Router on the same link which is >> >>>> connected to the Internet) will need to install a route towards the >> >>>> Requesting Router's interface for the delegated prefix. >> >>> >> >>> And there's the exact point of the discussion - if the relay agent is >> >>> not implemented on the router that needs the route, passing the route >> >>> in the DHCPv6 message exchange through the relay agent won't get the >> >>> route to the appropriate router. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In all cases, the Relay and other routers on that link MUST install >>>> a >> >>>> route. >> >>> >> >>> And how does that route get to the other routers? >> >> They are all on the same link, and one mechanism used to install >> routes dynamically is during ICMP Redirect. >> >>>> Whether they do it at allocation time, at ICMP Redirect time, or at >> >>>> manual config time - is another matter. >> >>> >> >>> I'm not saying the route installation can't be accomplished through >> >>> DHCPv6. I think you'll need to address the specific issues I raised >> >>> in previous e-mail to publish a specification for passing routing >> >>> information to the appropriate router through a DHCPv6 message >> >>> exchange with a host. >> >> Ok, my point is whether or not we could formulate a problem statement >> for this: there is a need for a route in the concerned routers, after >> the PD operation. Without that route the communication can't be >> established between Hosts configured with an address prefixed by the >> delegated prefix. >> >> Alex >> >>> >> >>> - Ralph >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Without that route the whole schmillblick doesn't work. >> >>>> >> >>>> Alex >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list >> >>>> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> dhcwg mailing list >> >> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >> > > > >
- [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Intern… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- [dhcwg] Fwd: Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to I… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ole Troan
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] errata to RFC 3633: s/provider edge r… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] errata to RFC 3633: s/provider edge r… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to In… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] discussion about PD-Relay-route Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Leaf Yeh
- Re: [dhcwg] RFC 3633 to Internet Standard Ralph Droms