IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <aduitsis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FDA1AE074; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYwz8FgyH_6b; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8341AE004; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e14so4573109iej.40 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:29 -0800 (PST)
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=fU648LIiLyZaDYisFf+qAvX2k2hNzIKliEcEN3E1VPQ=; b=03TZJIbBl9uFe1PJ8qwEq02mnUHf5ZE2DcENPzZt5o+PFmqJVEEcqQ6zTTRLa2bF2B 14CiSIPn8uZlPq2CikBgGoQlwJg+V7mDsT17xACvdwGpMyLyiErreGUg9OHHBmFmLsiz qAOalQH+8gqQysrpWGdpEc4yVaLUHN1werKn83hQiRXzgbfw2ozr1P+Uz5xay4qswGq1 XIyiMvrpZ9/DzRp83vkJBGjevt7VfiRmPqHPd/4G07Q8knPXNAr9Z9HF/mkDRw8e8Qpc 7h8HU0vj4jjVcpAaT1nfjPzx9xC+JrH97C/MDwXzCM0s8vEq4BpxDNm74GSzfiqXRV6R WBqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.6.99 with SMTP id z3mr19727272igz.27.1384879109911; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.227.168 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:38:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B10FDF95-9612-4DD7-8C3E-9361CCBCA4E3@gmail.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com> <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <B10FDF95-9612-4DD7-8C3E-9361CCBCA4E3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:38:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CABT9mj-p3tjamspMo-F5vJRSCAWEVkvBEogFjAFrr4jL3p9vpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3b9c23673bf504eb8a4b31"
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:38:37 -0000

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>wrote:

> 3GPP system uses these in the above manner i.e. Framed-IPv6-Prefix -> what
> you put into RA, Delegated-IPv6-Prefix -> what you delegate via DHCPv6. And
> in this case what was in Framed-IPv6-Prefix goes into OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE.


Hello,

In your opinion, should the copying Framed-IPv6-Prefix -> OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE
be rather be done (1) by the RADIUS server (assuming that a new separate
hypothetical RADIUS attribute exists) or (2) by the delegating router?

In other words, do you see any benefits in (1)?

-- 
Athanasios Douitsis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email