IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Int-area] Re: [dhcwg] Discussion of dhc WG rechartering for DHCPauthentication

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 14 November 2007 13:11 UTC

Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsI1U-0002kQ-0G; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:11:16 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipbkk-0003R6-IN; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:54 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipbkh-0005hD-3x; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:54 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,381,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="247703120"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 19:38:50 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA73co3I024010; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:38:50 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA73cnfb002375; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:38:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:38:49 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Re: [dhcwg] Discussion of dhc WG rechartering for DHCPauthentication
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:39:43 -0500
Message-ID: <EC1D3B60F1526848BF55E5AD3D391F8903A7C002@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D9309C4-247F-4751-BFDC-00CCEB9367E7@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Re: [dhcwg] Discussion of dhc WG rechartering for DHCPauthentication
Thread-Index: AcggHm+KfPGdwHk5Th6TDrp6Vvyw4QAzsuSA
References: <0MKpCa-1Ip7Tp4AID-0008VV@mrelay.perfora.net><472FC860.6000104@cisco.com> <8D9309C4-247F-4751-BFDC-00CCEB9367E7@cisco.com>
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 03:38:49.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5A34D70:01C820EF]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.075000-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1901; t=1194406730; x=1195270730; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=evoit@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Eric=20Voit=20(evoit)=22=20<evoit@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Int-area]=20Re=3A=20[dhcwg]=20Discussion=20of=20dhc= 20WG=20rechartering=20for=20DHCPauthentication |Sender:=20; bh=UXo/pOe7KXW9rrXIkwWlWYdImtHRaSlfULcIxstpMms=; b=JqmJwgHyvlZLkdJ2x3GEhn1cJcma3FBXMS1VcRueq1K/CS/NvpUzVdAhHnC2lt24KgDGwUWr PAdCIWCU+2/tEsUpcUwDeZOm+qVu6mP2rS7e40CNsKePuigHlP9hw1ImikoovPU6JukHoqbfWC 0RRTdm114GqMO6Gusf5XN1huQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=evoit@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:11:04 -0500
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

> From: Ralph Droms, November 05, 2007 9:37 PM
> 
> Does the short lease/long lease scenario scale the DHCP 
> server load by more than a factor of two?

Ralph,

The messages the DHCP servers will double.  
The messages with L3 edge (BRAS) will more than double.  
The messages with the CPE will more than triple.  

(Below is some rough math. I might have missed a message or two, but the
general trend is what I am trying to show.)

-----------------------------------------
CPE Messages
-----------------------------------------
DHCP Auth, assuming a 2 message EAP Method, the messages used by EAP
would be equal
+ 6 Messages (draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-01)

PANA+DHCP Method
+ 4 Messages: DHCP 1st IP address
~ (+2) DHCP renews per 60 seconds until authenticated
+ 11 Messages PANA with BRAS (draft-ietf-pana-pana-18, section 4.1)
+ 4 Messages: DHCP 2nd IP address

-----------------------------------------
L3 Edge (BRAS) Messages
-----------------------------------------
DHCP Auth, EAP Method
+ 8 Messages (draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-01)

PANA Method
+ 4 Messages: DHCP 1st IP address
~ (+2) DHCP renews per 60 seconds until authenticated
+ 11 Messages PANA with CPE (draft-ietf-pana-pana-18, section 4.1)
+ 2 messages min for validating with EAP Server
+ 4 Messages: DHCP 2nd IP address

-----------------------------------------
L2 Edge (DSLAM or Access Switch) Messages
-----------------------------------------
DHCP Auth, EAP Method
+ 6 Messages snooped (draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-01)

PANA+DHCP Method
+ 4 Messages Snooped: DHCP 1st IP address
~ (+2) DHCP renews per 60 seconds until authenticated
If snooping: 11 Messages PANA (draft-ietf-pana-pana-18, section 4.1)
Else if explicit policy distribution like ANCP, ~4 messages (one policy
per address)
+ 4 Messages Snooped: DHCP 2nd IP address


Eric

 
> - Ralph
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email