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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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.

Alex

>
>
> Best Regards,
> Leaf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:35 PM
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: [e-mail]; Ralph Droms; Bernie Volz (volz)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:20 AM 9/11/13, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Our Relay Agents all route.
>
> As Bernie wrote, relay agents don't route.  The piece of network equipment
> that implements the relay agent routes, and that network equipment *might*
> also need a route.
>
> One of the issues we talked about in the dhc WG is that, in fact, a route
> might need to be installed in some equipment that is not on the
> client-server path.
>
> So, yeah, perhaps s/provider edge router/some network equipment/ or even
> s/provider edge router/the network/
>
> - Ralph
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>