RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration
"Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com> Thu, 08 August 2002 14:59 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14624 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:59:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA06730 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06416; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:54:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06377 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from snowmass.tci.com (coral.tci.com [198.178.8.81]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14461 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wsimc06.broadband.att.com (wsimc06.tci.com [147.191.89.209]) by snowmass.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g78EFPxo002850; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:54:25 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from 147.191.89.203 by wsimc06.broadband.att.com with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:54:40 -0600
X-Server-Uuid: cda7734f-06b2-11d3-bc59-00805fbb2b22
Received: by entexchimc01.tci.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <QP1RMCC0>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:54:54 -0600
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC6666E4@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, 'Erik Nordmark' <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, Matt Osman <M.Osman@cablelabs.com>, "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:54:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 114C59BA866410-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(I trimmed the cc list somewhat) Erik Nordmark and I had an offline conversation yesterday, where we came to the following conclusion. If a service provider (e.g. cable operator) need to run multiple DNS servers on the same server box/chassis, in order to support independent DNS services (e.g. one for Internet access, another for Voice over IP), then we can assume that the service provider can run multiple DNS servers "bound" to different IP addresses assigned to the box/chassis, rather than "bound" to different UDP ports for DNS services. That is, each new DNS server on the same box/chassis costs another unique IP address. For a concrete instantiation of this assumed functionality, please consider the BIND documentation for the "listen-on" configuration option, e.g. section 6.2.14.4 of <http://www.nominum.com/resources/documentation/Bv9ARM.pdf>. It would be helpful to hear about other DNS servers with this capability. Following this assumption, my understanding is that the authors of the CableLabs Client Configuration DHCP option internet-draft will remove the domain name server address suboptions (4 and 5) from the next version of the draft, and the PacketCable VoIP endpoints (aka MTAs, sorry Ted ;^) will use standard DHCP option 6 to obtain domain name server addresses. If there is a need for many DNS servers to be co-located on the same box/chassis (which does not appear to be the case today), consuming an unreasonable number of unique IP addresses, then the issue of configuring non-standard DNS port numbers for clients might be revisited, perhaps in a wider context than just cable networks. Please respond to this email if these assumptions are incorrect -- especially if this isn't going to work! -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:Erik.Nordmark@sun.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:04 AM To: Woundy, Richard Cc: 'Erik Nordmark'; Josh Littlefield; Paul Duffy; Thomas Narten; Bernie Volz (EUD); 'Ralph Droms'; dhcwg@ietf.org; nrussell@cisco.com; pgrossma@cisco.com; Matt Osman Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration > Are you suggesting that if folks in the cable world still believe that there > is a requirement to communicate DNS port numbers to MTAs, then they should > define an additional Internet draft that is published as Experimental or > Informational? Depends on the ellusive details. It would be better if they could clearly communicate the requirement so that the IETF can look at it and try to understand what type of reqirement it is and whether or not it is a requirement specific to the cablelabs type of environment. If the requirement is that for testing purposes or experimentation in the cablelabs environments it is useful to be able to use different port numbers for DNS, then a separate info or experimental document would make sense. But I can't yet tell whether this is the case. > Note that the PacketCable specifications themselves, and the long-term > intent of the CableLabs Config option, is to enable VoIP services beyond > "walled garden" services. We are just talking about part of the DHCP option > information in that draft, no? Yes. Thomas had some issues with the other suboptions, but my concerns is about the DNS. > I don't quite understand the issue of non-interoperability. If an RFC > explains the expected DNS behavior of the MTA, and there are multiple > implementations that support that expected DNS behavior in DNS servers, > then... what's the issue again? There is in theory potential interoperability issues both for DHCP and DNS. DHCP: will things operate correctly if the MTA receives a good ol' DNS name server option instead of this suboption? If not you either get all the DHCP servers on the planet to implement the cablelabs option or you could end up with interoperability problems. DNS: will things operate correctly if the MTA is using the standard DNS port? If not you either get all the DNS resolvers on the planet to be configurable to run on an alternate port, you could end up with interoperability problems. Of course, by careful selection of parts (DHCP servers, DNS resolvers) for a cablelabs environment one can avoid these problems. But part of the benefits of the Internet interoperability story is that it doesn't require special versions of protocols and software; things off the shelf just tend to interoperate. This off-the-shelf aspect and the price of equipment that results is often a key perceived benefit of using the internet protocols. So let's think a bit before embarking on paths that break this. > The biggest advantage is that a cable operator could run multiple DNS > servers on the same hardware, with separate administrative tools, run by > possibly independent operations folks. There would be no issues about the > impacts of one DNS service configuration change on the other DNS service. > Both DNS services could be verified independently, without the need of > performing DNS queries "from the right location for the right test". Thank you!!! It's something concrete like this that I've been looking for all along. Have people been thinking about this when there are only two DNS servers on the box (one for the best-effort IP network and one for the VoIP network), or have people also been thinking about outsourcing cases where a single DNS box might provide DNS service for multiple VoIP networks run by different operators? I think understanding whether it can be more than 2 in a box might be important. Erik _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configur… Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Thomas Narten
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Thomas Narten
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Josh Littlefield
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Cosmo, Patrick
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Cosmo, Patrick
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Cosmo, Patrick
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Paul Duffy
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Sumanth Channabasappa
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Erik Nordmark
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Cosmo, Patrick
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Conf… Ryan Scripps
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Thomas Narten