Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
"JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK)" <shrinivas_ashok.joshi@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 10 September 2012 09:33 UTC
Return-Path: <shrinivas_ashok.joshi@alcatel-lucent.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 B69FF21F855F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fv+DhvEy6QWd for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336C521F853B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q8A9XBTu029755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:33:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q8A9X8tg026905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:03:10 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:03:08 +0530
From: "JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK)" <shrinivas_ashok.joshi@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:03:06 +0530
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
Thread-Index: Ac2PMx945+lUedSfTH2A15CQh9iI1gABBgUQ
Message-ID: <E666D4CA7557D04DB6B9B2BA6DC28F3D285C4356E1@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5049EC41.3080809@gmail.com> <CC06009A-6A37-4CD4-B428-DC0EAEA2E3CD@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC06009A-6A37-4CD4-B428-DC0EAEA2E3CD@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:33:16 -0000
Hi, I am in favor of this approach as well. -- Shree >-----Original Message----- >From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole >Trøan >Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:33 PM >To: Alexandru Petrescu >Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix- >pool-opt-08 > >Alex, > >[...] > >> One alternative solution may be to have a mechanism by which the Relay >> itself first executes Requesting Router (before being a Relay) to >> obtain that short prefix, at which point we no longer talk 'snooping'. >> This could be the Prefix Pool Option without snooping. > >I'm more in favour of that too. the Relay acts as a DHCP client and requests a >"static route / prefix pool / aggregate route" whatever we choose to call that >option. > >you would still need snooping to populate the RIB in the Relay itself though. > >cheers, >Ole
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh… Leaf yeh
- [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh-dhc… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh… Ole Trøan
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on some aspects on draft-yeh… JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK)