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

Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk> Thu, 22 August 2013 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>
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 C69A021F9DF6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:50:24 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 ZbruQW-dYUzA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.s-carlsen.dk (mail2.s-carlsen.dk [IPv6:2001:16d8:dd00:81ac::17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2AC21F9DFB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from silver4-wire.s-carlsen.dk (unknown [IPv6:2001:16d8:dd00:81ac:cabc:c8ff:fe91:1152]) by mail2.s-carlsen.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 37B3B275B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:50:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5215FAF6.6060405@s-carlsen.dk>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:50:14 +0200
From: Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; 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>
In-Reply-To: <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040907020604030109020209"
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 11:50:24 -0000

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.


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>rg>; 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!!!"