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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:13 AM 9/11/13, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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, that's absolutely right and mistake I've often made.  More correct would be "provider edge router that implements the relay agent function"

- Ralph

> 
> - 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
>>