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

[Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

>> I look at it differently. you are adding more complexity on functions that are not in the data path. in my book that isn't fate sharing.
> 
> How is this not on the data path?

the DHCP server is not on the data path. unless one follows the model described in 3633 where the DHCP server is on the PE router.

[...]

>> this is like saying that configuring OSPF on a router is a unsolved problem, just because it isn't done with DHCP. ;-)
> 
> No, if OSPF is how these routers are being configured, that's not what I think of as static configuration.   Is that in fact the case?   It's my understanding that there is no clean dynamic configuration mechanism that ties back to the address allocation system (that is, to DHCP). 

I might be missing something here. I don't understand how the aggregate route for a set of delegated prefixes is dynamic. when and how could all subscribers within a aggregate move?

> It seems to me that what we are talking about here is exactly analogous to what's done today in IPv4 with DHCP snooping and DHCP leasequery, both of which seem to be good solutions that are widely deployed and work well for network providers.   If there's a better way, I'm all ears, but when I asked in the routing area, I got some pretty vague answers that sounded a lot like "it's configured statically."

hmm, I didn't think the IPv4 aggregate route was deduced or configured from DHCPv4 either. the deployments I'm aware of, the PE is always configured outside of DHCP with the IPv4 subnets / aggregate routes. what's the analogy?

cheers,
Ole