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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 7BECA11E8161 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 05:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 1-8gvlz5cr9K for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 05:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F49611E81A4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 05:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r7MC0TYY011413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:00:29 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7MC0TEY011139 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:00:29 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r7MC0S4v011519 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:00:29 +0200
Message-ID: <5215FD5C.1050102@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:00:28 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FA8A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAC8QAcfaT2c3j1aFS0Qf2bieRs_MH1xov7CjE0POhMnU75YuiA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com> <5215FAF6.6060405@s-carlsen.dk>
In-Reply-To: <5215FAF6.6060405@s-carlsen.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:00:40 -0000

Le 22/08/2013 13:50, Sten Carlsen a écrit :
> I may easily be wrong here but snooping sounds to me like a stop gap
> solution i.e. what you do when no better method is available?
>
> Seen from outside (my chair) it looks like there might be a need for a
> protocol to talk directly with the switch/router, possibly first passing
> a control/admin system that controls what may be set up in various
> places in the network.

Sounds as if a combination of DHCP and another protocol be needed 
whenever DHCP PD is deployed in a DHCP Relay topology.

But something that describes the problem could indeed be written.

Alex

>
>
> On 22/08/13 12:55, Leaf Yeh wrote:
>> Ted - This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents _already_
>> snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.
>>
>> I remember Ted has a discussion with WG-RTGWG on this topic in its session
>> of IETF84, and we had an additional discussion on the ML of
>> Routing-Discussion. Per these discussion records before and the personal
>> feedback from Adrian (RTG-AD), my conclusion (or impression) sounds that
>> 'use DHCPv6 to add & withdraw route on the PE router' will get rough
>> consensus (or will not irritate big controversy) in IETF.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Leaf
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org  [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Ted Lemon
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:29 AM
>> To:<sarikaya@ieee.org>; Behcet Sarikaya
>> Cc:<dhcwg@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Behcet Sarikaya<sarikaya2012@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Isn't it not good to use DHCP options to establish routes? Remember what
>> happened to
>>
>> It's not possible to get IETF consensus on a DHCP option to deliver routes
>> to clients.   I never said it was an inherently bad idea.   The reason I
>> asked MIF to stop working on it was that the endless floggings were getting
>> in the way of doing real work.   Really, preventing us from doing real work
>> at all.
>>
>> This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents _already_ snoop
>> DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> --
> Best regards
>
> Sten Carlsen
>
> No improvements come from shouting:
>
>         "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>