Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ole,

I meant the following below...

Le 07/09/2012 17:30, Ole Trøan a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> [...]
>
>>> this does not solve the DHCPv6 PD problem of route injection. a
>>> route needs to be installed per client, and snooping is still
>>> needed for that. this proposal _only_ solves the problem of
>>> installing an aggregate route for multiple PD RRs into a
>>> PE/relay.
>>
>> In a sense I agree - this proposal seems to still require
>> snooping. (i.e. existing single prefixes in PD require snooping and
>> pool-opt draft requires it too).
>>
>>> this is most typically done with static configuration today.
>>
>> Well no, static configuration at Relay is not sufficient for PD to
>>  work, even if we dont talk pool-opt draft - there is a need of
>> that route at Relay.  There is no other solution to that than DHCP
>> Relay to become more intelligent (i.e. "snoop").
>
> the _aggregate route_ (i.e the route covering the PD prefixes)
> installation and redistribution in an IGP is typically done with
> manual configuration on the PEs.
>
> route injection by PD itself, is typically done by DHCP snooping.

I meant to say that DHCP snooping is needed anyway to insert a route in
the routing table at Relay, with respect to the allocated prefix during
a regular PD operation - that route is about the allocated prefix and
the next hop being the address of the Requesting Router.

Whether that particular route gets distributed in the core is a question
which when there are many  such routes it be big.

But 'snooping' must already be there for that route in the Relay.

(if I understand correctly this 'snooping' behaviour).

The logic would be that if snooping is already there then it wouldn't be
the fault of this draft about it.

But I think this is already clarified by recent days discussions on this
topic, no need for me to insist.

Alex

>
> cheers, Ole
>