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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Thu, 22 August 2013 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766C211E81BD for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hi7BkHuYZPTc for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BFC11E81BB for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4951; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377177147; x=1378386747; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=bHVjCUU1VSTjD45lMc847QxPkBbXZoec69s7ly270cM=; b=Vx85bjJ5RxWqnHwXyLp9AdrKkNyJfUtcTGZENJQVGu96ta3du0W1UCWE hrvCDsJpeLYpD5i5H5Po6IYoNRdcOctuCiNx6Nto3GFr6dhwsKaV+Ml/N 3Es5EnW0KUIpGVA1Be34/Cz+ACORDHAgeFgLkPLkm1QFpPkMWL0H1eijY 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,934,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="250440515"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 13:12:25 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7MDCPTP018282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:25 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:12:25 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Ralph Droms <>, Alexandru Petrescu <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: AQHOnzXvaLHmSLwSfkSFfLi6OLbc0pmhMawA
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:32 -0000


Thanks for bringing up that old draft! There were issues here that caused this work to be abandoned.

And, yes and no regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate. I think one difference in the prefix-pool is that this is more to handle the case where the relay (router) is told to inject X/48 into the routing instead of Y/64 or Y/60 that might be going to the client. (This it to avoid having to inject lots of /64 or /60 routes when many clients are 'connected via the router'.)

Agentop could have been used to do that, but I'm not sure that was explicitly discussed or covered (and I didn't check the draft).

I did like agentop better than this proposal in one respect - and that is its use of lifetimes for the prefix. Prefix-pool's uses a flag is a terrible idea (IMHO) since there is nothing to guarantee communication on which to piggyback the request to remove the pool. A lifetime covers that as it causes the entry to expire on its own. And, 0 lifetimes can be used to remove 'now'. But that's more of a minor issue as to whether the entire work is appropriate.

Cable CMTS devices have been snooping address and PD assignments for a long time now and rather successfully. I suspect that the 'prefix pool' issue there is handled by static configuration on the CMTS.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:48 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu <> wrote:

> Hi,
> One point I think is essential is the installment of routes in the 
> DHCP Relay upon Prefix Assignment.
> The base DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC does not stipulate that DHCP 
> must install a route in the DHCP Relay upon delegation.
> This draft seems to at least assume it, and to describe much more 
> about
> it: how various parts of assigned prefixes are aggregated and communicated.
> I support it.

After a quick read, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate seems to have been aimed at the same problem.  If I have that right, it might be instructive to review the dhc WG mailing list discussion that lead to the abandonment of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate.

- Ralph

> Alex
> Le 21/08/2013 14:41, a écrit :
>> Hi Tomek,
>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a 
>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control 
>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of 
>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be 
>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band 
>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the 
>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior because 
>> the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix assignments; and 
>> therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental 
>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real 
>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
>> Cheers, Med
>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : 
>>> [] De la part de Tomek Mrugalski Envoyé 
>>> : lundi 19 août 2013 16:52 À : dhcwg Objet : [dhcwg] Anyone 
>>> interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in the 
>>> prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in the 
>>> room. The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I just 
>>> wanted to confirm that on the list.
>>> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and 
>>> participate in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing 
>>> list. Otherwise we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead 
>>> WG document.
>>> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
>>> Bernie & Tomek _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list

dhcwg mailing list