IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

"Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robmgl@cisco.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <robmgl@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B6B1AE0EA; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:10:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FRT_ADULT2=1.474, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FRT_ADULT2=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZwlizUmzWGSq; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119A01AE00B; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:10:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8340; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384881044; x=1386090644; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=nlxKWhOio5OqQQoLg/FG8KHFQckwZWJBAgHkTk/A8Io=; b=DXfSl1+wIgqvF36LlS4tk7QqknYEAfF6rU0Krf4/2gUwRY8JTHolSKIy lc9k3q/t1CCdOezjJ4zqq2NNebaLeV73t+ODY6zjBufFT3lRCz/Me05v0 gu7ltwIT56lAaPr+9I6JN37ZDsGKzHEatQmj69f/A1E88S6qYiz9+Qwy5 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAP+ai1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO/PoEhFnSCJQEBAQQtTBACAQgOAwQBAQsdByERFAkIAgQBDQUIh2cDD7Z2DYhIF4xjgkMxBgGDIIESA5QwgXeOQIU4gyiCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,730,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="283114983"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2013 17:10:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAJHAhdm019230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:10:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:10:43 -0600
From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robmgl@cisco.com>
To: Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Thread-Index: AQHO5UXOsn3IR999/EelIBkBsrSMwJotJp4AgAACHQD//50pQA==
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:10:42 +0000
Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1D4ED850@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com> <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <B10FDF95-9612-4DD7-8C3E-9361CCBCA4E3@gmail.com> <CABT9mj-p3tjamspMo-F5vJRSCAWEVkvBEogFjAFrr4jL3p9vpw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9D36C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CABT9mj8Gt==+m-JL2foTvZnU49EhSODN0595cb-P1jn9YQgE6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABT9mj8Gt==+m-JL2foTvZnU49EhSODN0595cb-P1jn9YQgE6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.147.178]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1D4ED850xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Nov 2013 17:10:53 -0000

Hello,
I see your point. In my opinion if you would like to have all the prefixes assigned by RADIUS server in order to be able to cover the scenario you described in a clean way you would need a new RADIUS attribute for PD_EXCLUDE.
The reason why I think a new radius would be required is because you need to differentiate between the scenario where Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used to number the Wan link with a separate prefix (not included in the PD - without the PD_EXCLUDE) and the scenario you described where the prefix for the WAN link is part of the PD and you need to copy it into the PD exclude option.
Today the BNG (that in this case is acting both as RADIUS Client and Delegating Router) has no mean to know if the  Framed-IPv6-Prefix should be used for the  PD_EXCLUDE or not and in my opinion it would be better not overload the sematic of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix.
Any comment?
Thanks
Roberta

From: Athanasios Douitsis [mailto:aduitsis@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:50 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Jouni Korhonen; radext@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org; Roberta Maglione (robmgl); dhcwg@ietf.org WG; Michael Richardson
Subject: Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation


On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
This must be done by the delegation router (if you are talking about the DHCPv6 packet itself) - as it is the one that constructs the Advertise and Reply messages to the client.

Pardon me, I meant to wonder who should make the assignment, not who should construct the packets.
When you are using the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix AV pair, the delegating router obviously constructs the packets with the delegated prefix value, but the actual assignment has been done by the RADIUS server. By the same token, I wondered whether it makes sense to do the same for the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE value.

Kind regards,
--
Athanasios Douitsis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email