[dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 24 August 2012 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 E3EAE21F86C3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hgJ56bl4yPC0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D1D21F86B1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUDeeefwKXtb9AungPKY6V438JpqyUdao@postini.com; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:12 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266951B82F7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E06119005C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:32:09 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
Thread-Index: AQHNgg2f2GWemYRp/0G7NT9hbKcz6w==
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:32:08 +0000
Message-ID: <91484F36-D059-4D90-8BFE-60434864A579@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <52BAE29824D9404EA2E9A96862321B29@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08
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, 24 Aug 2012 15:32:13 -0000

The authors have proposed that the working group adopt the prefix pool option draft as a working group item.   We have engaged in some correspondence with participants in the Routing Area, and while some helpful advice was given, no objections were raised to going forward with the work, and it's a DHCP protocol extension, so it makes sense for it to happen in the DHC working group.

The document proposes an extension to the DHCP protocol that allows the DHCP server to communicate prefixes to the provider edge router when doing prefix delegation, such that this router can advertise a route to an aggregate prefix, rather than to many individual prefixes, and so that this router does not have to perform ad-hoc prefix aggregation, which may produce less optimal results.

If you think this work should be adopted by the working group, please reply to this message saying so.   If you think this work should not be adopted by the working group, please reply to this message saying so.   We will evaluate consensus on September 7.