Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FBF1ADFA8; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:20:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FRT_ADULT2=1.474, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FRT_ADULT2=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8qse3Ge4v5TO; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:20:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6A01ADFA6; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:20:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18596; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384867201; x=1386076801; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=5ND2Ub+e+evZCSQc8tE6N2LABhaS5O9VpLjraz0GqzA=; b=Ffdm3TiozT/q24XxbkpOoqM0FtCgEpMP4lsy5AnSdvdP1uBFbYyDulrg 56huOGSOjS2RnRKjmEscSTk7ZCtKmnEmguZKrKVR0rsWTKambyjt4HDb1 bS9i6TQ7Qk5UBYhEU5+SBVWsKO05WPmQ6RziFZe3HXbDQdnMN4D4dYCs7 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFABZli1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO/PoEfFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEqQQsQAgEIDgMEAQELHQchBgsUCQgCBA4FCIdnAw8Ntj8NiTkTBIxjgkMtBAYBgyCBEgOWJ45AhTiDKIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,729,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="595038"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2013 13:20:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAJDK0HL020798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:20:00 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.192]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:19:59 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Thread-Index: AQHO5SRrepnZi6kuBkSQ4npy9bk7mJosiNgw
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:19:59 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com> <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.183]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7xmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "Roberta Maglione \(robmgl\)" <robmgl@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:20:09 -0000

I guess from RFC 4818, Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is used for PD. Whereas it says:

   The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to support
   delegation of IPv6 prefixes to be used in the user's network, and
   therefore Framed-IPv6-Prefix and Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attributes may
   be included in the same RADIUS packet.

But, I'm not really clear if that ends up mapping to OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE for the Framed-IPv6-Prefix. Perhaps if the case is as in your example (Framed-IPv6-Prefix is contained by Delegated-IPv6-Prefix, but not equal) then using the Framed-IPv6-Prefix for OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE makes some sense?


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Athanasios Douitsis
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:40 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: radext@ietf.org; Michael Richardson; Roberta Maglione (robmgl); dhcwg@ietf.org WG; homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Hello (thanks for the answer),
The uplink connection between the delegating and the requesting router will be in many cases enumerated with a prefix dictated by the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value. If this uplink prefix is going to be a part of the greater prefix that will be delegated, we would in effect have to include the value of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE.
Example, if a delegating router makes a RADIUS request and gets the following attributes in the reply:

Framed-IPv6-Prefix='2001:dead:beef::/64'
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix='2001:dead:beef::/56'
Then the delegating router should
1)send an RA in the client uplink interface with 2001:dead:beef::/64. The uplink is enumerated with that /64.
2)Afterwards, when requested for PD, it should reply with the 2001:dead:beef::/56 to the requesting router, but excluding the 2001:dead:beef::/64 from that /56 by putting it in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE.
So in effect, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix has been copied in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option.
If I have misunderstood something in the RFC or the discussion, I'd be grateful if you would correct me.
Thanks very much,
Athanasios







On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
Why would it ever be copied into that option? That makes no sense to me.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Nov 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "Athanasios Douitsis" <aduitsis@gmail.com<mailto:aduitsis@gmail.com>> wrote:


(i.e. have a configuration option to use the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value in the prefix exclude option instead of an RA)

Correction, the above is incorrect, as has been rightly pointed.
Are there any cases where the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value will not be copied as-is in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE value?



_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg



--
Athanasios Douitsis