Re: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 prefix delegation

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 04/02/2014 17:31, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:06 AM To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6
>> prefix delegation
>>
>> Le 03/02/2014 19:10, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Andre Kostur
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014
>>>> 9:36 AM To: Templin, Fred L Cc: [e-mail] WG Subject: Re:
>>>> [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 prefix
>>>> delegation
>>>>
>>>> The RFC doesn't get into details since it may not even be the
>>>> delegating router doing the route updates.   As an example, in
>>>> a cable network, it may be the CMTS (who plays the role of
>>>> Relay Agent from DHCPv6's perspective) who is snooping the PD
>>>> traffic and may emit the appropriate routing updates into the
>>>> network (using some other standard dynamic routing protocol
>>>> such as OSPF).
>>>
>>> Thanks for this. So, it seems that the RFC3633 DHCPv6 relays (and
>>> maybe also servers) can snoop the PD exchanges and update the
>>> routing system via some unspecified means. But, are there any
>>> more recent publications that have either attempted or succeeded
>>> in specifying a standard method?
>>
>> Solutions (like 'snooping') to the problem have been explored in a
>> number of documents at IETF and others.
>
> I have been down this road before too, and can dig up some of my old
> expired drafts if there is interest. I also remember being actively
> engaged in the RAAN option discussions a long while back and sort of
> lost track of where that all ended up, but thanks to Ralph for his
> update on the status.
>
>> I with co-authors have attempted to formulate it as a problem in
>> October 2014, and analyzed some solutions "Route Problem at Relay
>> during DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation"
>> draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00.txt
>
> That is interesting. Are you planning to continue this work?

Well yes.

I have spent some time identifying interested parties, and laid down a
problem draft.  I have presented it to DHC WG, got feeback, and
subsequently announced it on the RTGAREA email list.

I think that formulating a problem meaningfully may help, some times,
designing solutions.  A future solution to this problem may be useful
beyond DHC WG.

Hence my interest.  It's rather speculative, but there it is.

Alex

>
> Thanks - Fred [e-mail]
>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks - Fred [e-mail]
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Templin, Fred L
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, RFC3633 says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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."
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is, since the publication of RFC3633 has there
>>>>> been a new RFC published that specifies "a protocol or other
>>>>> out-of-band communication to add routing information"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks - Fred [e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing
>>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Andre Kostur
>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>