IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

"Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms@cisco.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 970A312D59F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.068
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 lYiW5SUss4jo for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95E4512B063 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6054; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472058898; x=1473268498; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=D+klqm03lgoyFwPmbnr3gSkKhNRZfYfEwJ913RWjwu0=; b=mNSzI3/3BdXUOG3U9yYyNizXHbqSLT/D1r1/21PnTJHjluiRqnqwoNQj 6F3qCedbU1eChIbiXiuaK63JppW9VGZfMMCLPEFadiKF06m+3ahir+6hL sbTvtTDv2BHV43U1LyRhw36DMLKO8Zwa+paD9OqYvmEcpC4MoNbDvNUTS 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CVAgD41L1X/4sNJK1dgykBAQEBAR5WfAezAIUIgX4khXkCgUo4FAIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBBAEBAWwLBQsCAQgECgonBycLFBECBA4FDg2IDwgOvlYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEOCQWGLYF4glWEKk6CdYIvBYgjhzOJcgGDPYFzg26GA49QjECDeAEeNoIVHIFMcAGHQH8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,571,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="313406610"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Aug 2016 17:14:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (xch-rcd-018.cisco.com [173.37.102.28]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7OHEvTK001086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:14:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:14:57 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:14:57 -0500
From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
Thread-Index: AQHR9M7hF7+ox3I710OmCVdADsL1WaBGDGeAgAA+lwCAAAn1AIAEKdgAgAH3pgCAAcHfgIABdYgAgAADMICAAPbYAIAGuH0AgAAcCACAAGAdAIAAvucAgAAFvoCAABCsgIAAAW4AgAANBwA=
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:14:56 +0000
Message-ID: <AF387F3E-1B64-4E5D-BAF7-EB5BF3ED1EB4@cisco.com>
References: <92dcf2e0cf08452caa5861f7258ea6c5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <201608121919.u7CJJqcS056876@givry.fdupont.fr> <c5303eef3c124228825f32a40f229107@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ccaff4d4cb5c4eefb05eee0660c2611c@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f46aa91e4cfb41b29dd2d8186f5959f8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ba1c8ff573d7466b8c437373e05f1023@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <b65e1dd66b634240b3ca164b2c04c20a@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfb5sxOpkTEXkwZXckKBWof7U1-W6EFzCHk7ijnMjpMMA@mail.gmail.com> <5ec83aaf4e76497aa4b4d465483bdcf5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqeKqEgLVC2ZZyUCjsrPP5_suRJ8en2NC+g13Q5PyQL1iw@mail.gmail.com> <30c9413c4662476096ef087ac88f6314@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <dc9d2c300d574732a12f7f366f6223c0@XCH15-05-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <3A5F0B79-8C76-4E82-97E9-FA63657DE6C3@cisco.com> <CAJ3w4NdjgVxvnvuaWjGM=qtOe0qUq4N96fVXsbNrf=YkhiABbQ@mail.gmail.com> <2f45b99b50f84b1280e92ad824e39e26@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <9E9A9543-ECB0-4D99-A00F-1AAD813B6522@fugue.com> <091180442e44490ba451874d1543f814@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAPt1N1=pD7TBrU_NnuyGz61+CiUVp0JiyLLfMUKTz_dgnO59QQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=pD7TBrU_NnuyGz61+CiUVp0JiyLLfMUKTz_dgnO59QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.118.109]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2A44022-4110-4EB8-8089-BA11C34C987F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/IWE1My3A7gU4-ahdpCiMuTCYHOs>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:15:00 -0000

> On Aug 24, 2016, at 12:28 PM 8/24/16, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 24, 2016 12:23 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
> 
> > I think possibly so. If the server can feed the relay the IA_PD option then
> >
> > all is well. In fact, I think this same issue would apply in any other prefix
> >
> > delegation use case where the relay needs to inspect the IA_PD so it
> >
> > can inject routing information into the routing system.
> >
> >
> >
> > Am I understanding correctly?
> 
> Yes. This is the exact use model we need to address. Ralph Droms did some work on it a few years ago but it never got off the ground. The work needs to happen.
> 

If I recall correctly, this is the I-D: draft-draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-00.txt

...which expired back in 2005.  The dhc WG discussed the idea and we ran into concerns that out-of-order packet delivery or delivery through different relay agents might cause the state in the relay agent to be out-of-sync with the state of the assigned addresses or prefixes.  While we tried to engineer solutions to those issues into this mechanism, I call that we conclude the proper solution is for some other mechanism (e.g., today, an SDN controller) to inject the right information into the routers or routing protocol.


> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email