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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.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 28CC111E820D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Kqm+52GWdvPX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x22b.google.com (mail-qe0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B3821E809D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id gh4so5294065qeb.16 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=38UU077G3bbwSbsP6//CmxAs8gRH8IF3qrpqGvYa6Wk=; b=Knrq4+SdfHRqXm83tD2y6T4OEt9ZhW4VRbGktXaZGLQV5eE0pJgGgDc0EFNBdDJAYj G7N49EER8nv1T7I943JllNbWsc2jWjawVef68c8I3C5YrcTm341hPs8yETJONBZGYWdl 2MDWsSWTB9BDh5gxLBv19eiqVf2Aynby10Cmtp3Qdptl5AETjOoOJzNPbfNB3VprBN+6 2Mr2ggeBEOdpEd8NZlFWuvanpgJZZCTBpTAbGfhqpzNdO+jksoTZWNIM25PLPGUn9+zF vUPcxzbYCklW0t7sn/skU9rpwEBiGPKgTINz/X1tux93xB1dElXbrMTQXy/XeJpPL9t6 H92g==
X-Received: by 10.49.82.7 with SMTP id e7mr2883704qey.16.1378902516159; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:ac22:b138:dd7:98c7? ([2001:420:2481:20:ac22:b138:dd7:98c7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm40532895qen.5.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:24:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <696FE016-1B8E-44EE-971B-29CE67B605E5@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>, <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org> <ECD231FD-8D3F-4067-8BDE-AE567D96F6A7@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:28:40 -0000

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:13 AM 9/11/13, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> 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" <otroan@employees.org> 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
>>