IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Intro to draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-00

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 39B59130E9A; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 05:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Rb8bukfSefUK; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 05:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7467130E9D; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 05:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2776; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538654879; x=1539864479; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vXNSJLiW26XD3kMaqKs7vL43C2Z7NNKoptg3wseWUsM=; b=IZgOUxDxKa1fLvP4T0EaaWjf3yHeW7jW9BsHWZVw1jAcRuD0koIg+s1P o3RoweAiUlVhNZ5yrC1SA8pSPaUkgAlgYEUByZhSQFyG6e8sKCXser382 PUWGsAKK87DjR8+R/RiDEfGqHtwipsvy/ncs4eb410tLBLPYZONwrLgea 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AcAABwAbZb/4MNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBVAEBAQEBAQsBggVmfyiDdJQygWglmFgLAQEYC4RJAheEDiE3Cg0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIU5AQEBAQIBAQEhEToLBQsCAQgYAgImAgICJQsVEAIEDgWDIQGBeQgPo0yBLoQrAYVlBYELihkXggCBEicME4JMgxsBAYRiMYImAohLNoZUjgEJApA+F4FMjh2JAYw2AhEUgSUzIoFVcBU7KgGCQYsWhT5vjRcBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,338,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="464594269"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Oct 2018 12:07:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w94C7v0a004440 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:07:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 07:07:57 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 07:07:57 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
CC: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org list" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Intro to draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-00
Thread-Index: AQHUW8/e+NFOHuhxRkuDDpmQI2YBw6UO/iaR
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:07:57 +0000
Message-ID: <3F33CA22-0537-47E9-8AF2-863B9F1B6FB8@cisco.com>
References: <CAHL_VyDqrn4jmkWxqXJEgaBaJqy-RdqNvjPH=SWc5brpcScE4Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DED59D4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAHL_VyAXuDnESoKcowBug-VTkw0_qpK-5qjnQ6ATz-cko2UgrA@mail.gmail.com> <56B2584A-CD70-4EA9-A7B1-06447B0F1667@employees.org>, <CAHL_VyCkGS8rV2Sfg80dOmLsPz8ahhhWUyN+muCCvFOu=XGvig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHL_VyCkGS8rV2Sfg80dOmLsPz8ahhhWUyN+muCCvFOu=XGvig@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/rD-Z2mxKJCzyYzORK_i6Cpdvxb4>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Intro to draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Oct 2018 12:08:08 -0000

Your draft, if advanced, will get you the options defined.

You should update your draft to include the new items that are being added to the DHCPv6 options table maintained by IANA: whether option needs to be in ORO and whether it is singleton option (I believe yes to both is applicable).

- Bernie

> On Oct 4, 2018, at 6:49 AM, Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> Requiring the DHCP option makes a big difference in deployability.
>> Without it, I can implement this feature today. With it, I have to wait until the DHCP option is standardised. And we would presumably get into a big debate about what CE routers should do in the cases where they don’t get a DHCP option. Should they try this mechanism anyway?
>> 
>> We have not requied explicit configuration in the other cases where we have recommended this mechanism. Ref. RFC5969.
>> 
>> While the echo mechanism requires some special provisioning on the local system (ensure that ingress filtering isn’t blocking packets with yourself as source) I am not aware of anything on the PE that woukd block this. If there is consensus on that, I think it’s perfectly fine to require this mechanism on by default in CE routers.
>> Although we might add some specifics to deal with a case where DHCP was successful, state in PE was correct, but health check still failed.
> 
> 
> Perfectly valid reasoning.   Personally I'm not too hung up on
> requiring the DHCP option, but thought it was useful. If we think it's
> going to be a large barrier to implementation, I'm happy to remove it
> and then emphasise the warmup period concerns within the Startup
> section.
> 
> As a side-note, is it really that challenging or slow to get a new
> DHCP option assigned?  Perhaps I'm showing my naivety here.
> 
> -Rich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email