Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <greg.rabil@jagornet.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 512D411E80CC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 EJB9j4z5RG51 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B606811E8096 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so2448889bkt.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=KrCWVDokIWcBY8nWjPl3eCbgpYMSiV5jXuuvA1YiwHg=; b=CQ3+nyMD9sUyQlQdbOZ8ybiVxy7vdkIC4yHykIQhtiEsQcRl4yQjsu6lvoAxFtDsEQ JU7GhyG0nvpVNgVgFZLC2L3+xiLpLUCzvTWnBs0eWyyVIxUyngesPO//jXZkHrDTrvEp qWB6E5b+hiZDf2y9VZ8ukO99+TBUqBSDfqUljMyNVtvvDDK0/LJiRZpG+oxWAL6cBIFh n3QKPrjLRTr2uI1Vy3gkXuleUlhLANdB6q9Th68XiaIVbPKPv+cdhSz6AWbPuoGkqeK0 OtgyELNYaExeOkaAmeJqTCSQfoNydpDIj+8SO5med9qm2cel1YCNa+LbCNg/MygcnH0p LYXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.152.199 with SMTP id h7mr178663bkw.39.1342141617045; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.156.133 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <p06240800cc24845ad6c8@simon.thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <521202936.30106.1342097834494.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <p06240800cc24845ad6c8@simon.thehobsons.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:06:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vuVSteBt0DnA8ykycoyF_M4oz+ZqZxKbmZ4=hURnGuJ9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175cd9e85280ba04c4abb2ac"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkk90ZQ6XKmB29aFfajfqdYxcwFqsK8sdk+KpQ1XDC5Gdntdpp/6qJJrKo9hQwcqX+juLBW
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-00.txt
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 01:06:29 -0000

> While I could see some situations where going further might be useful, I
could only see it working in a managed environment (eg ISP supplied
routers, I'm thinking something similar to ISP supplied cable modems).

Consider the case where both the delegating and requesting router are
within an enterprise network, not the current use of PD with home routers.
 In this case, the downstream interfaces are indeed interesting to the
delegating router.


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>wrote:

> perl-list wrote:
>
>  Okay, consider prefix-delegation, for example. ...
>>>
>>
>  What you say in theory is interesting and could pose a problem.  In
>> practice, however, it seems that prefix delegation and WAN configuration
>> happen simultaneously in the same exchange within the same packet.  Also,
>> as this draft is intended to help correlation between DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
>> using the (hardware / link layer / MAC - whatever we are calling it these
>> days) address, your argument about downstream interfaces that would not be
>> known in DHCPv4 space is irrelevant.
>>
>
> I agree, and what's more I can't really see how it's an upstream server's
> job to configure downstream interfaces on a router. In the general case
> where PD is likely, it's going to be an ISP delivering a prefix to a
> customer's router - what the customer wants to do with that isn't really
> anything to do with the ISP.
> All the ISP needs to do is a) configure the customer's WAN, and b) provide
> them with a PD.
>
> While I could see some situations where going further might be useful, I
> could only see it working in a managed environment (eg ISP supplied
> routers, I'm thinking something similar to ISP supplied cable modems). I'd
> see that sort of situation managed by 'private' extensions/options which
> could be agreed between the client and server - possibly as an industry
> segment standard vendor option space.
>
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Ted - keep it simple so it can actually get
> passed !
>
>
> --
> Simon Hobson
>
> Visit http://www.**magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/<http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/>for books by acclaimed
> author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
> Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
> ______________________________**_________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/dhcwg<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
>