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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Our Relay Agents all route.

We are not a provider.  Our edge network is itself made of a few other 
smaller Access Networks, for mobility experimentation.

Alex

Le 11/09/2013 14:13, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> And relay agents don't route so why would they technically care about
> routing? The relay agent is usually co-located on a provider edge
> router and certainly these components often need to communicate.
> Thus, I don't think replacing with relay agent would be correct.
>
> - Bernie (from iPad)
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:04 AM, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Alexandru,
>>
>>>>> In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the
>>>>> term 'provider edge router.' in a section describing the
>>>>> behaviour of the Relay agent:
>>>>>
>>>>> 14.  Relay agent behavior
>>>>>
>>>>> A relay agent forwards messages containing Prefix Delegation
>>>>> options in the same way as described in section 20, "Relay
>>>>> Agent Behavior" of RFC 3315.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router
>>>>> through a relay agent, the delegating router may need a
>>>>> protocol or other out-of-band communication to add routing
>>>>> information for delegated prefixes into the provider edge
>>>>> router.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by
>>>>> that 'provider edge router'. Because otherwise the term
>>>>> doesn't appear elsewhere in the document.
>>>>
>>>> (Assuming you meant RFC3633) Yes, s/provider edge router/relay
>>>> agent/
>>>
>>> Yes, I meant RFC3633, and yes s/provider edge router/relay
>>> agent.
>>>
>>> That would make for an errata that one could suggest in the
>>> errata site?
>>
>> I'm not sure I see what difference it would make?
>>
>>>>> Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol
>>>>> is needed between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean
>>>>> that inserting a routing table should happen by that
>>>>> 'out-of-band' means (and not 'out-of-band communication')?
>>>>
>>>> Not speaking for Ole, I meant that some other means, which
>>>> might be a protocol, manual configuration, etc., is needed to
>>>> add routing information into the relay agent.
>>>
>>> In that sense I agree with it.  It is thus a problem that is
>>> already explicit in this RFC.
>>
>> everyone does this with snooping today, but that's not covered by
>> any RFC. the closest we got to exploring the options was in
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-pd-route-maintenance-00
>>
>> cheers, Ole
>>
>
>