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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 BE64811E810A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 VnsHsvN-L-qx for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x234.google.com (mail-qe0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6B211E80D3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i11so2936493qej.11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HbGkFYZPxjBIgTNi+FtvcgO0lTek3Yh5RUEZjS9stvE=; b=qNWRwwccHmOoEBF9sIBfc/ULEW8YAHV7bOr3ueTwMzf7/KEK/sRFQLJg5e8IyD2Y9D jdIA6y5LZcksQ0Dwby0G5XSsaisSj8hycy4lTQ8DGbNepgXEGk/CeZ89YZkWvDYFhBJ+ 1FLSQgO5cuL0gzAtIxfA78tnMjzOJgrbfekwk2LAeaDZ34VXxw+Wigsky4bEg3QASZgZ j3dn077KL3RG1BtqcMufs1N5RAJqXJ01X6aqdssMJDbIiSAApyfPrUyCptErTruN0/m/ P9xzuU1GsMgu5tFmu4NRajoBz+K8mLZsyy/oE1KhxxIE/kHdxvxoPV4Hy5RGRX65hzdm hmVA==
X-Received: by 10.49.51.67 with SMTP id i3mr31087134qeo.8.1380011560527; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-1-185.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fy7sm50341985qeb.1.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52405701.9070506@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:32:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@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>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
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 08:32:41 -0000

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?

> 
> 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.

- Ralph

> 
> Without that route the whole schmillblick doesn't work.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg