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

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

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
>