Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 08:20 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 A854811E8187 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 hreR76B+JJCg for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2440711E817A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so6549705wes.37 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hZEoa93Il1PYkFmfTNfWl6vqZIWDO9U9kR03uQAwqpw=; b=c7uBwUbykuPv62ZRrru8HwAyQBtpSxOhNe1/Sz1R5EeFQz/zzcJCIUzkCQjkIdbEWd Pw71ikAIXrlpn4BYnUjMgAdkiF1GS4CrM2Re1RPn6PuIFLv4WLBiwyVG6fuA1pyqz86V fHR/TzY6PilKEDKFeUNWwjzQ7YYXq3b11XlzojQddvEc43hvNNe/++J1Fg+eTzo2VuJt Ocz0C0BFRQHDj36lNUBM2WPDS0YCYDLRyR5FdWyqgGOOlfexC5iVWP1cJ2hJ9EevTl/k vvK/+76QnPOoOubSNsP92BK5TB5PB3aaOQLEnQ023S5UIx7azZvgaVtrvXUGsbY7SGY5 f3GA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.71 with SMTP id p7mr327485wix.48.1378887598320; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.61.13 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:19:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442887c7bb31904e61749b2
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:20:04 -0000

Hello,

Please allow me to re-issue this, now in relationship with Leaf's draft.


2013/8/19 Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>

> On 12.08.2013 21:21, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > During the Berlin IETF-87 DHC WG session, it was suggested that we
> > initiate a standards action request to move RFC 3315 (and RFC 3633),
> > which are presently Proposed Standards, to Internet Standard. While we
> > plan to work on a 3315bis which would merge the work, it was pointed out
> > by several people (include our Area Director) that there is technically
> > no need to wait for that to advance the standards.
> >
> > The requirements for advancement are outlined in RFC 2026 and RFC 6410
> > (which removed Draft Standard).
> >
> > Per RFC 6410:
> >
> > The criteria are:
>

[...]

>    (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
> >        new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
>

In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the term 'provider
edge router.' in a section describing the behaviour of the Relay agent:

14.  Relay agent behavior
>
>    A relay agent forwards messages containing Prefix Delegation options
>    in the same way as described in section 20, "Relay Agent Behavior" of
>    RFC 3315.
>
>    If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router through
>    a relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or other
>    out-of-band communication to add routing information for delegated
>    prefixes into the *provider edge router*.
>
>
I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by that 'provider
edge router'. Because otherwise the term doesn't appear elsewhere in the
document.

Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol is needed
between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean that inserting a routing
table should happen by that 'out-of-band' means (and not 'out-of-band
communication')?

I am asking this because I explore the possibilities of formulating a
problem statement about why DHCPv6-PD breaks when assigning a prefix
through a Relay.

Alex