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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 9231011E80E3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YCji2b6YolOq for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B0211E8159 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c11so5090160wgh.18 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QuPxExWQWMYYwpHaZvTcTeAG9lYRPCjTAtW9cPn7TvQ=; b=etyO1Z+fleZtMA0R450faeRhiU/NLchFz3aA1zvcumyNisp45HFPSWVuaxuZXuFjw1 kauUcVoHVzCIUgjMTZJUNGG3Ikaf4i9jJFWWQeXrDIt7NwrUK2X3KPzSW8ufcrkqr76x 8ba7xopgfUhykP8PA6LVBZtndAMUeeIs0THK+P25BPtlq0Ex1F8eaWFv4o/7dgEV5Jmz sZw5M82kGGBE9szoWDk4VzPheWioInyN99NsLO48HfYaCQtY8imHztQ/nBdy8kZgzI/R ej/xK0Mu+P3eYnftiIwbKLHz47WQMoKCE9BwSv8ySBrA5UubLcaYxdSXBAo8h3fUtqLw u6Cw==
X-Received: by 10.180.89.225 with SMTP id br1mr19827290wib.50.1380055476145; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.250.24] ([82.110.242.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dq11sm11070496wid.3.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:43:56 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6690AA2A-BB92-45BE-A66C-8BFFE5A441F2@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>, <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org> <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com> <52306010.4090001@gmail.com> <5E91E9B8-6E22-46DD-A687-B4983BD0B508@gmail.com> <523f2fa3.c9ed440a.55a9.ffffc38e@mx.google.com> <52402AF3.8010407@gmail.com> <5240486E.20501@gmail.com> <52405701.9070506@gmail.com> <2CC893E4-7C48-4345-A40E-E2B3822C14ED@gmail.com> <5241951B.2070606@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:44:39 -0000

On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:35 PM 9/24/13, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 24/09/2013 10:32, Ralph Droms a écrit :
>> 
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:58 PM 9/23/13, Alexandru Petrescu
>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Le 23/09/2013 15:55, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
>>>> On 23.09.2013 13:50, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>> Le 22/09/2013 19:57, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
>>>>>> Ralph > The piece of network equipment that implements the
>>>>>> relay agent routes, and that network equipment *might* also
>>>>>> need a route.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On the PE router implementing relay for DHCPv6-PD, it always
>>>>>> needs add the associated route for the CE's network of
>>>>>> delegated prefix. I can't see *might* here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with the doubt.  I don't see a might, but rather a
>>>>> must. Otherwise it doesn't work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But maybe I dont understand the word 'might' as a native
>>>>> speaker could hear it.
>>>> Relay agent is functionality that can be provided by a piece of
>>>> software. You can run it on any box that is connected to more
>>>> than one network. Although typically such a box serves as a
>>>> router, it doesn't have to.
>>> 
>>> You mean a Relay agent which runs on a pure Host (single real
>>> interface, no additional virtual/real interfaces)?
>>> 
>>> Even in that case it (or the Router on the same link which is
>>> connected to the Internet) will need to install a route towards
>>> the Requesting Router's interface for the delegated prefix.
>> 
>> And there's the exact point of the discussion - if the relay agent
>> is not implemented on the router that needs the route, passing the
>> route in the DHCPv6 message exchange through the relay agent won't
>> get the route to the appropriate router.
>> 
>>> 
>>> In all cases, the Relay and other routers on that link MUST
>>> install a route.
>> 
>> And how does that route get to the other routers?
> 
> They are all on the same link, and one mechanism used to install routes
> dynamically is during ICMP Redirect.

According to RFC 4861, sec. 8.2, routers ignore ICMPv6 Redirect messages:

   A router MUST NOT update its routing tables upon receipt of a
   Redirect.

I don't recall if that text is updated by subsequent RFCs.

> 
>>> Whether they do it at allocation time, at ICMP Redirect time, or
>>> at manual config time - is another matter.
>> 
>> I'm not saying the route installation can't be accomplished through
>> DHCPv6.  I think you'll need to address the specific issues I raised
>> in previous e-mail to publish a specification for passing routing
>> information to the appropriate router through a DHCPv6 message
>> exchange with a host.
> 
> Ok, my point is whether or not we could formulate a problem statement
> for this: there is a need for a route in the concerned routers, after
> the PD operation.  Without that route the communication can't be
> established between Hosts configured with an address prefixed by the
> delegated prefix.

I agree that there is a need for the route to exist and an appropriate problem statement could be formulated.

- Ralph

> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>>> 
>>> Without that route the whole schmillblick doesn't work.
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>