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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:20 AM 9/11/13, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Our Relay Agents all route.

As Bernie wrote, relay agents don't route.  The piece of network equipment that implements the relay agent routes, and that network equipment *might* also need a route.

One of the issues we talked about in the dhc WG is that, in fact, a route might need to be installed in some equipment that is not on the client-server path.

So, yeah, perhaps s/provider edge router/some network equipment/ or even s/provider edge router/the network/

- Ralph

> 
> We are not a provider.  Our edge network is itself made of a few other smaller Access Networks, for mobility experimentation.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 11/09/2013 14:13, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
>> And relay agents don't route so why would they technically care about
>> routing? The relay agent is usually co-located on a provider edge
>> router and certainly these components often need to communicate.
>> Thus, I don't think replacing with relay agent would be correct.
>> 
>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:04 AM, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alexandru,
>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Assuming you meant RFC3633) Yes, s/provider edge router/relay
>>>>> agent/
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I meant RFC3633, and yes s/provider edge router/relay
>>>> agent.
>>>> 
>>>> That would make for an errata that one could suggest in the
>>>> errata site?
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure I see what difference it would make?
>>> 
>>>>>> 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')?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not speaking for Ole, I meant that some other means, which
>>>>> might be a protocol, manual configuration, etc., is needed to
>>>>> add routing information into the relay agent.
>>>> 
>>>> In that sense I agree with it.  It is thus a problem that is
>>>> already explicit in this RFC.
>>> 
>>> everyone does this with snooping today, but that's not covered by
>>> any RFC. the closest we got to exploring the options was in
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-pd-route-maintenance-00
>>> 
>>> cheers, Ole
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>