Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <robmgl.ietf@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 3B70121F9FD6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:30 -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 UAVGZCHZYXvu for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22f.google.com (mail-lb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0E321F9F96 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 13so2116111lba.34 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:26 -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=a/WWzA5jvcYibb3HQUPWzVb3qyp9C13+5FjX29FHUvU=; b=OLsPrQqlS3u+49lOWpWlxXMLf2wzO2mnVyeX0ozd0VmJQ8jRmr+XvRNvP4VyGC6ezz 9+B/6E7pK3yeAYoSnIzLTjTn1nfwKSQ1bGhaGsRlhdpge+ivVX2j+urWZZQuVE7hDNU3 PXdZxSOHRKGpNSoenEejMfrMv/GSwa2eqe+JumY2soEERxK0ueqeHsmdzBoZplLhNlKh lkA3qDCjqE10xOp7R7mWOk2ZwrlxjvERp/1WeLlPeFamb4ZC09xNxmsxmQL3tvZb8Fka Ev8myOH01ErTPG0/Jq7fwC6NS1wZE5n3wYJTGsFrr9w9d1yvX6Seu34S4qvuQc5x86TU eoIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.128.166 with SMTP id np6mr13121749lbb.7.1377203486255; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.30.203 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEEE4E649@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8166FEF1-0991-4BDF-A35C-6D6E922CF0DD@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEEE4E649@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:31:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKOT5Kr_Ve+9taH_AmhUp1HwHY=ggytVjUuToMf2Wr4oKoozOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343ef294f24b04e48f2c39
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:31:30 -0000

Hello,

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I’m struggling to see the value added
by this new option in terms of route aggregation functionality.

Today with IPv4 if I need to summarize some routes I manually configure on
the router a summary/aggregate route and I announce it into the routing
protocol. Moving to IPv6 you could do the same thing, I don’t quite get
what’s wrong with that?

You say you would like to have an automatic way to tell the PE to aggregate
the routes, but if I understand correctly the proposal what you are doing
here is only moving the configuration of the summary route from the PE to
the DHCPv6 Server; what do you really save here?

In addition the route aggregation is not a per customer configuration, it
would be per box or per service configuration so why do you want to add it
to customers’ profile in DCHPv6 Server?

Thanks

Roberta


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Re-,
>
> IMHO, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate does not cover the same
> objectives as in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt.
>
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt aims to provide a dynamic means to
> trigger route advertisement actions and to control the route aggregates to
> be injected using a routing protocol. For example, a router can be told by
> the DHCP server to advertise an aggregate even if not all individual
> prefixes are assigned to customer located behind that router. This is a
> measure that can help in optimizing routing tables and avoid injecting very
> specific routes. Snooping the assignment and then guide the route
> advertisement actions may not be lead to the same optimized routing tables,
> because there will be "holes" that will prevent aggregating routes.
>
> Having an explicit channel like the one specified in
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> >Ralph Droms
> >Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 14:48
> >À : Alexandru Petrescu
> >Cc : dhcwg@ietf.org WG
> >Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-
> >prefix-pool-opt?
> >
> >
> >On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu
> ><alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> One point I think is essential is the installment of routes in the DHCP
> >> Relay upon Prefix Assignment.
> >>
> >> The base DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC does not stipulate that DHCP must
> >> install a route in the DHCP Relay upon delegation.
> >>
> >> This draft seems to at least assume it, and to describe much more about
> >> it: how various parts of assigned prefixes are aggregated and
> >communicated.
> >>
> >> I support it.
> >
> >After a quick read, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate seems to have
> >been aimed at the same problem.  If I have that right, it might be
> >instructive to review the dhc WG mailing list discussion that lead to the
> >abandonment of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate.
> >
> >- Ralph
> >
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> Le 21/08/2013 14:41, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> >>> Hi Tomek,
> >>>
> >>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a
> >>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control
> >>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of
> >>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be
> >>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band
> >>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the
> >>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior
> >>> because the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix assignments;
> >>> and therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
> >>>
> >>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental
> >>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real
> >>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Med
> >>>
> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
> >>>> [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Tomek Mrugalski
> >>>> Envoyé : lundi 19 août 2013 16:52 À : dhcwg Objet : [dhcwg] Anyone
> >>>> interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
> >>>>
> >>>> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in
> >>>> the prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in
> >>>> the room. The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I
> >>>> just wanted to confirm that on the list.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and
> >>>> participate in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing
> >>>> list. Otherwise we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead
> >>>> WG document.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
> >>>>
> >>>> Bernie & Tomek _______________________________________________
> >>>> dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> >>> dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dhcwg mailing list
> >> dhcwg@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >dhcwg mailing list
> >dhcwg@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>