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

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

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 766C211E81BD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hi7BkHuYZPTc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BFC11E81BB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAAwNFlKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwU1UcAHgR0WdIIkAQEBAwEBAQFpAgsFBwQCAQgOAwQBAQsdByEGCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId2AwkGDKxyDYF8BI1tgkgxBwaDFXsDiHaLF4FwjhqFKYFkgTuCKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,934,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="250440515"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 13:12:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (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 xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.201]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:12:25 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E186A6607@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8166FEF1-0991-4BDF-A35C-6D6E922CF0DD@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8166FEF1-0991-4BDF-A35C-6D6E922CF0DD@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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 13:12:32 -0000

Ralph:

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: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:48 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org 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 <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> 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, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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 : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org 
>>> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 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@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> _______________________________________________ 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

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