Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Fri, 23 August 2013 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F71C11E82F9 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kn+rs+XmEmp2 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173F911E82F5 for <>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=25024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377256821; x=1378466421; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=SNbidQ15Y3yZN0LeLZ++GOv09qTf7Dv6lMguOC66FWQ=; b=X5W8gcsNkJe1GjAe30fRAsiKfGNXT2k0fjrykvj6hKLvW+dDHywQDM8T vhTP9q468cXtMZUOTRJDNKhAb3TErZ/LAgpUyq11Vp/qLdF1rO85Y81pn EiFY0c5iWp0mhelufeAiGhQ54OI6covTPf3gaYnfvS4MqZxcSHrh0QL// U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,941,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="250850993"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2013 11:20:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7NBKFce014497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:20:15 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:20:15 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: Ac6fdpRhGuGPQP+RSnWxWYU0EMRErAATdE+gAAuV46E=
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:20:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7B81A958943446B6973AD4BD7F2C424Fciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ralph Droms <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:20:33 -0000

BTW - I think I may have indicated this before, but does this really avoid the need for configuration on the router (relay)? How are items such as the link-address and next hop (dhcp server) addresses configured (rfc 3315 has a multicast default)? So there is still a bunch of "manual" configuration required? Admittedly you do say "more automation" but not really sure that has a lot of value - perhaps we need a Dynamic Router Configuration BOF?

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:15 AM, "<>" <<>> wrote:

Hi Roberta,

Yes, as indicated in the document, manual configuration is an option… but it has its limits too.

This proposal is a contribution to add more automation to network configuration without requiring an additional dynamic protocol to drive how aggregates are built in a router co-located with a requestor, and therefore interact in a more dynamic fashion with a routing protocol (e.g., drive route withdrawals, etc.).

Of course, some routers can offer some features to optimize the size of routing tables and prevent from injecting (very) specific entries. But still this behavior is implementation-specific and does not provide the same aggregation level as the one proposed in this document.

Unlike implementation-specific behaviors, this proposal is deterministic since it is fully controlled by the entity which has the full knowledge of prefix related states and network policies: e.g., the server has the knowledge of prefix assignment, prefix assignment policies, prefix aggregates, etc.

I confirm this option is not a per-customer configuration parameter.


De : Roberta Maglione []
Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 22:31
Cc : Ralph Droms;<> WG
Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?


Maybe I’m missing something here, but I’m struggling to see the value added by this new option in terms of route aggregation functionality.

Today with IPv4 if I need to summarize some routes I manually configure on the router a summary/aggregate route and I announce it into the routing protocol. Moving to IPv6 you could do the same thing, I don’t quite get what’s wrong with that?

You say you would like to have an automatic way to tell the PE to aggregate the routes, but if I understand correctly the proposal what you are doing here is only moving the configuration of the summary route from the PE to the DHCPv6 Server; what do you really save here?

In addition the route aggregation is not a per customer configuration, it would be per box or per service configuration so why do you want to add it to customers’ profile in DCHPv6 Server?



On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, <<>> wrote:

IMHO, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate does not cover the same objectives as in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt.

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt aims to provide a dynamic means to trigger route advertisement actions and to control the route aggregates to be injected using a routing protocol. For example, a router can be told by the DHCP server to advertise an aggregate even if not all individual prefixes are assigned to customer located behind that router. This is a measure that can help in optimizing routing tables and avoid injecting very specific routes. Snooping the assignment and then guide the route advertisement actions may not be lead to the same optimized routing tables, because there will be "holes" that will prevent aggregating routes.

Having an explicit channel like the one specified in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior IMHO.


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De :<> [<>] De la part de
>Ralph Droms
>Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 14:48
>À : Alexandru Petrescu
>Cc :<> WG
>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-
>On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu
><<>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> One point I think is essential is the installment of routes in the DHCP
>> Relay upon Prefix Assignment.
>> The base DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC does not stipulate that DHCP must
>> install a route in the DHCP Relay upon delegation.
>> This draft seems to at least assume it, and to describe much more about
>> it: how various parts of assigned prefixes are aggregated and
>> I support it.
>After a quick read, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate seems to have
>been aimed at the same problem.  If I have that right, it might be
>instructive to review the dhc WG mailing list discussion that lead to the
>abandonment of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate.
>- Ralph
>> Alex
>> Le 21/08/2013 14:41,<> a écrit :
>>> Hi Tomek,
>>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a
>>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control
>>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of
>>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be
>>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band
>>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the
>>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior
>>> because the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix assignments;
>>> and therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
>>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental
>>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real
>>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
>>> Cheers, Med
>>>> -----Message d'origine----- De :<>
>>>> [<>] De la part de Tomek Mrugalski
>>>> Envoyé : lundi 19 août 2013 16:52 À : dhcwg Objet : [dhcwg] Anyone
>>>> interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>>> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in
>>>> the prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in
>>>> the room. The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I
>>>> just wanted to confirm that on the list.
>>>> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and
>>>> participate in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing
>>>> list. Otherwise we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead
>>>> WG document.
>>>> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
>>>> Bernie & Tomek _______________________________________________
>>>> dhcwg mailing list<>
>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg mailing list<>

dhcwg mailing list<>