Re: [dhcwg] [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option

Responding to this is on my todo list since MAastricht I believe - sorry 
for having missed other opportunities.

On a DHCP Relay, there would be a need to set up a route relative to a 
delegated prefix.

I need to better understand the context and then I will give more review 
of this document.

Alex

Le 02/08/2012 12:47, Acee Lindem a écrit :
> Hi, I'm not sure what I was thinking this morning when I said that
> the DHCP server should run a routing daemon and advertise the
> aggregate route. Rather, the BRAS server that is maintaining
> subscriber DHCP state should have a configured aggregation policy for
> the DHCP prefix pool route. This problem has already been solved in
> commercial BRAS servers and there is no need to add a generic route
> advertisement mechanism to DHCP. Thanks, Acee
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the Routing Area meeting this morning, Ted raised some potential
>> DHCP work that routing folk should look at. Comments ideally go to
>> the DHC working group or back to Ted.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ted Lemon
>>> [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] Sent: 02 August 2012 20:11 To:
>>> adrian@olddog.co.uk Subject: DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option
>>>
>>> Thanks for the time at the mic this morning.   The document I
>>> wanted you to comment on or solicit comment on is the DHCPv6
>>> Prefix Pool Option draft:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt
>>>
>>> There was a question at the mic about why the DHCP server
>>> wouldn't inject the route itself, which I think is a good
>>> question, and could be argued to be the
>> right
>>> thing to do.   However, operationally there are a lot of missing
>>> pieces to
>> this-the
>>> DHCP server now becomes, in addition to being a DHCP server, also
>>> a publisher
>> of
>>> routes, and has to have information about the routing topology of
>>> the ISP that
>> I
>>> think might be nontrivial to maintain.
>>>
>>> The advantage of the current approach, which is improved by this
>>> new draft, is that it piggybacks on top of the existing
>>> relationship between the relay agent
>> and
>>> the DHCP server, which is required for DHCP to work.   The DHCP
>>> server now does not have to know the topology of the network-it
>>> sends the prefix aggregation information to the router, which
>>> presumably already has that information, by way of the DHCP
>>> relay, which is typically co-located in the
>> router.
>>>
>>> So despite my protestations of innocence at the mic, I suppose I
>>> do really
>> think
>>> it's a reasonable way to solve this particular problem.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ routing-discussion
> mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>