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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 B663311E8161 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 3ZLAKgqGvXup for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E29A11E8101 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r7MBwm6Q022515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:58:48 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7MBwmjg010491 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:58:48 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r7MBwVKq010579 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:58:48 +0200
Message-ID: <5215FCE6.1000203@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:58:30 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FA8A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAC8QAcfaT2c3j1aFS0Qf2bieRs_MH1xov7CjE0POhMnU75YuiA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5215ee1f.a2c4440a.63af.10d6@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:58:56 -0000

Le 22/08/2013 12:55, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
> Ted - This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents
> _already_ snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE
> devices.
>
> I remember Ted has a discussion with WG-RTGWG on this topic in its
> session of IETF84, and we had an additional discussion on the ML of
> Routing-Discussion. Per these discussion records before and the
> personal feedback from Adrian (RTG-AD), my conclusion (or impression)
> sounds that 'use DHCPv6 to add & withdraw route on the PE router'

Well yes and no, depends how it is expressed.

On one hand, the DHCP software on the Relay should insert a route
whenever a Prefix is allocated by PD - otherwise later application-layer
packets are not forwarded from that prefix through that Relay.  Maybe
the route entry should expire when the prefix lifetime expires.

PD through a Relayed topology is useless otherwise.  It would be as if
an address were allocated with DHCP but the firewall blocked that address.

On another hand, an explicit DHCP message to add routes (as seems to
imply the wording 'use DHCPv6 to add route on the PE router') approaches
more the meaning that may be controversial.  Because that is the typical
what routing protocols do, and in the particular case of default routes,
it is the typical action of ND.

Alex


> will get rough consensus (or will not irritate big controversy) in
> IETF.
>
>
> Best Regards, Leaf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent:
> Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:29 AM To: <sarikaya@ieee.org>rg>; Behcet
> Sarikaya Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested
>  in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Isn't it not good to use DHCP options to establish routes? Remember
>> what
> happened to
>
> It's not possible to get IETF consensus on a DHCP option to deliver
> routes to clients.   I never said it was an inherently bad idea. The
> reason I asked MIF to stop working on it was that the endless
> floggings were getting in the way of doing real work.   Really,
> preventing us from doing real work at all.
>
> This is a completely different situation-DHCP relay agents _already_
>  snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>