[dhcwg] Fwd: Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

[sorry if duplicates]

Hello,

Please allow me to re-issue this, now in relationship with Leaf's draft.


2013/8/19 Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>

> On 12.08.2013 21:21, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > During the Berlin IETF-87 DHC WG session, it was suggested that we
> > initiate a standards action request to move RFC 3315 (and RFC 3633),
> > which are presently Proposed Standards, to Internet Standard. While we
> > plan to work on a 3315bis which would merge the work, it was pointed out
> > by several people (include our Area Director) that there is technically
> > no need to wait for that to advance the standards.
> >
> > The requirements for advancement are outlined in RFC 2026 and RFC 6410
> > (which removed Draft Standard).
> >
> > Per RFC 6410:
> >
> > The criteria are:
>

[...]

>    (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
> >        new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
>

In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the term 'provider
edge router.' in a section describing the behaviour of the Relay agent:

14.  Relay agent behavior
>
>    A relay agent forwards messages containing Prefix Delegation options
>    in the same way as described in section 20, "Relay Agent Behavior" of
>    RFC 3315.
>
>    If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router through
>    a relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or other
>    out-of-band communication to add routing information for delegated
>    prefixes into the *provider edge router*.
>
>
I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by that 'provider
edge router'. Because otherwise the term doesn't appear elsewhere in the
document.

Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol is needed
between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean that inserting a routing
table should happen by that 'out-of-band' means (and not 'out-of-band
communication')?

I am asking this because I explore the possibilities of formulating a
problem statement about why DHCPv6-PD breaks when assigning a prefix
through a Relay.

Alex