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

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 16:36 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 9B0BD21F90DC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:59 -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=[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 rQFTHi10CpXj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C85321F8267 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w10so605589pde.37 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=2DPDcNtbKYvZi/x/EzgoS3a50pA3XWvgtomvKo1sxfA=; b=ye/JufS3r9wSMKp3GtOkqmzOhnnFu5db/+l1tyMHgzNd4C/wSA+PUW4t1eP575JKxA tiZ0sDpFCBfIkicWFx7Tjax65R+NA335cD2gsCrUBG8Fswy4jW6wih1td8hxi8NDnF25 JsbwDNDDKpFgTck2qiPMrqJFBeGXxuOS+ww79kEfjgGT7q4YU8PUwN7lh5W1yejmBr+l JVUsbtZdKiiRlmStmd3wF8glz3NqQUx1kAXVx+FJtEQzeojavIC+AWi1jKdtjvlk6Otf +k88GIBElYoOzUxzHp2G+PHoRgxG5Usxlcg3g54xawzkIzqLBrK24PhxvUeXaB9ZjFdX xIQg==
X-Received: by 10.67.1.228 with SMTP id bj4mr4705924pad.157.1377016612112; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PC ([111.193.212.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fk4sm4746392pab.23.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: "'Tomek Mrugalski'" <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, "'dhcwg'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52123110.10205@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:36:44 +0800
Message-ID: <52139b23.0466420a.469b.fffff843@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac6c67gVmsgM331GR+GWebfMyapCyAAZ7JzA
Content-Language: zh-cn
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:36:59 -0000

I believe the WG-draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL) does put forward a problem that
occurs in IPv6 deployment, which need route aggregation at the PE router.

The question about working interest here might include 3 parts of meaning:

1. Do we need a dynamic configuration mechanism for the route aggregation
here?

I guess some guys could live with the manual configuration for the route
aggregation here. In the ipv4 deployment, we always need configure IPv4
address for the associated interface on the router, which is in the same
subnet of the addresses assigned the CE or subscribers' hosts. 

The point of this draft is that we need automatic configuration mechanism
for the aggregated route on IPv6 router, while we are not necessary to
configure ipv6 address for the associated interface.


2. Do we need a mechanism tightly coupled with DHCPv6-PD (RFC3633)
mechanism?

The alternative solution might be that the relay could communicate with the
server independently with DHCPv6-PD, which sounds more general for each kind
of possible parameter on the router.  

The point of this draft is that router aggregation sounds only associated
with the DHCPv6-PD and its prefix pool. The newly defined option and its
associated mechanism could solve the problem in the easiest way, and not
introduced new DHCPv6 message; but the option will always be included in the
DHCPv6-PD message by the relay and the server.


3. Do we need a mechanism patented by Huawei?

It depends on what you read from the IPR disclosure
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2051/ ) of Huawei. Per the message on the
web, my reading is that their terms are defensive and harmless if you don't
assert patent against Huawei, though the IPR disclosure looks too late.



Best Regards,
Leaf
(one of the authors)




-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Tomek Mrugalski
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:52 PM
To: dhcwg
Subject: [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