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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 13:35 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 767AB21F8E3D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.799, 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 P3af14noikme for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:35:41 -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 B7FB211E8131 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:35:30 -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 r8ODZO44024062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:24 +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 r8ODZODO012309; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:24 +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 r8ODZN0P011140; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:24 +0200
Message-ID: <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:23 +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: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@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>
In-Reply-To: <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:35:46 -0000

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> wrote:
>
>> Le 23/09/2013 15:55, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
>>> On 23.09.2013 13:50, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Le 22/09/2013 19:57, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
>>>>> 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>