IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.yeh.sdo@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 DAD0F11E8101 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5IdRgFr6rV3A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616F811E80F4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id lf1so1364409pab.24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=GC8880tHWS8PUDXMXWD3OIzXVA1Dwa0krWJJnhpZL6c=; b=Gp5/8EFhcUpSxo4AJsA7Fe8+bGjcKiLq8FtruFmFxFT+V87yg/rpgxI8EkKb+P9lY1 7VHbLsInrkSmPoWw6EYyB8KPoYhqYEs8RrGyvDPdjXzjDOrGQZNNWMA2HkdeVLW2HuZZ ZRKuWrPiN4Iu7t0wt3U780YcKeMFoXd7ipAH6dMACyJp/TUh8V/XIJqWsRkzk0x7gFKu pjwb927v40uzkpTj8CDeegV1mNFfDTF65McL4voqGwhJ+KCdtqPLxAN8M7XSAfb/k8gT +3bezfoeV+w+YjQHkJCpXf4xP+ODF6nP8qFjPfYij93rk8Vk5oSpQdj6u16zjEnLAves t6oQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.176.132 with SMTP id ci4mr12810456pbc.7.1377168928039; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PC ([111.193.212.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id in2sm14123075pbc.37.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: 'Ted Lemon' <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, sarikaya@ieee.org, 'Behcet Sarikaya' <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:55:21 +0800
Message-ID: <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHOnoeIs46aVPQ+eUigVLVDcoXDS5mgT00A//+YC/A=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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 10:55:32 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email