IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 07 September 2012 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@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 68C7321F86D0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nP96owUr2BZ3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695F221F86C2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1316902eek.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=qfXwIuR+RpD/tmS9tTct/41Z1IjhdXPD2YjZ5SQRyz8=; b=A202+oqnTfeIRosBVEqH4+Kk9xr4J1NrOIpjKazzllxvs6qhK2i7wwpie/xBydhSUQ CltTuRkKOBW2w2GUwdqaS5kfS1pnLEuQ163abgkI4X+z9zw8YP8rEwQwbX4GBZTrtmYI gTpiSz+mINY68OPxQTY1UCe1+RL7tO+F2ouPBbXWAUCRxUY7gElsgFk2cSiZtyH0Nueb Yg6xp8LJRNGfA7J5KR1ALI32Zn8UcyDNUI+pILDB7uT4Xzm7Hih2OFXW5IQSllnMNHQV hyKnVIFG64gLQ0RtHztLOvcfvLkLT8ZxBG31xS24POSDqUB4IP+ncLwGWPZa47B4NT1t NiHA==
Received: by 10.14.175.7 with SMTP id y7mr8454159eel.29.1347031846620; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:fe0:cf15:30:5cdb:e28b:d24c:c442? ([2a02:fe0:cf15:30:5cdb:e28b:d24c:c442]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u47sm15587677eeo.9.2012.09.07.08.30.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B124D37A-F103-40EE-9745-BCC0B0EDC3C4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <5049E443.5040305@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:30:42 +0200
Message-Id: <48CC6041-9BAA-4D92-A13E-307BB7CBA459@employees.org>
References: <91484F36-D059-4D90-8BFE-60434864A579@nominum.com> <6B6C7CCC-0971-4CD1-BC2F-849F6BDC1863@employees.org> <5044C350.4010403@gmail.com> <E666D4CA7557D04DB6B9B2BA6DC28F3D285C2A36F8@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <6C1B27BB-3FBD-4046-9923-0FE6080D8AEC@nominum.com> <22044EFB-C429-4CF9-A2BB-23EFE1331A24@employees.org> <5049E443.5040305@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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, 07 Sep 2012 15:30:48 -0000

Alex,

[...]

>> this does not solve the DHCPv6 PD problem of route injection. a
>> route needs to be installed per client, and snooping is still needed
>> for that. this proposal _only_ solves the problem of installing an
>> aggregate route for multiple PD RRs into a PE/relay.
> 
> In a sense I agree - this proposal seems to still require snooping.
> (i.e. existing single prefixes in PD require snooping and pool-opt draft
> requires it too).
> 
>> this is most typically done with static configuration today.
> 
> Well no, static configuration at Relay is not sufficient for PD to work,
> even if we dont talk pool-opt draft - there is a need of that route at
> Relay.  There is no other solution to that than DHCP Relay to become
> more intelligent (i.e. "snoop").

the _aggregate route_ (i.e the route covering the PD prefixes) installation and redistribution in an IGP is typically done with manual configuration on the PEs.

route injection by PD itself, is typically done by DHCP snooping.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email