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

Sten - ... snooping sounds to me like a stop gap solution .

Per my understanding about the implementation (or behavior) of the PE router
of today, it (or it's CPU) snoops & handles every protocol message in the
control (and management) plane in fact.

Best Regards,
Leaf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sten Carlsen
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:50 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

I may easily be wrong here but snooping sounds to me like a stop gap
solution i.e. what you do when no better method is available?

Seen from outside (my chair) it looks like there might be a need for a
protocol to talk directly with the switch/router, possibly first passing a
control/admin system that controls what may be set up in various places in
the network.

On 22/08/13 12:55, Leaf Yeh wrote:
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' 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>; 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

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 