Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <aduitsis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CCF1AE0BC; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMXULDwQGEg7; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B217B1AE0CA; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so3416105iec.37 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dcU/pClsyWfQTnyr7PBLm+Pid12S1wKjKEFydqV62no=; b=Nlh/wUop++wWKJxrm90PDt1Wa6eVqK+Qi17XGgo6pq125LWj5OoBPZMBgVdTGEPXmW W88ZrcP3HY/J+9daRi6A62pydth/BgyfqlU+vQCCb519fW1aQPswK0NNJdv0Dw5dKJ6D PgLb9WWIKvLUwHxZr1J37vH5+IYBYgzRc/uWhVYBX0fskonRq45oXI7JoCaajjgCSXlv FoKh6f+MS+LWBDLva8SkLCwhGl2LdImPqXX8Fipc8uLoWWtCTvdvlwEqdDATxptcL0/A ENuxrccJvdW59mw8MOMQdGOpPv+qI8PbHyhY4u+bQjywQRPuoW7OhGkGVchjYSc7EfGy VcHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.110.74 with SMTP id hy10mr19714505igb.0.1384879784651; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.227.168 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:49:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9D36C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com> <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <B10FDF95-9612-4DD7-8C3E-9361CCBCA4E3@gmail.com> <CABT9mj-p3tjamspMo-F5vJRSCAWEVkvBEogFjAFrr4jL3p9vpw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9D36C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:49:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CABT9mj8Gt==+m-JL2foTvZnU49EhSODN0595cb-P1jn9YQgE6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf182d29ef50004eb8a73dc"
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Nov 2013 16:49:52 -0000

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> This must be done by the delegation router (if you are talking about the
> DHCPv6 packet itself) – as it is the one that constructs the Advertise and
> Reply messages to the client.


Pardon me, I meant to wonder who should make the assignment, not who should
construct the packets.

When you are using the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix AV pair, the delegating router
obviously constructs the packets with the delegated prefix value, but the
actual assignment has been done by the RADIUS server. By the same token, I
wondered whether it makes sense to do the same for the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE
value.

Kind regards,
-- 
Athanasios Douitsis