IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 prefix delegation

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 03 February 2014 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 5252C1A01E2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:11:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.736
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, 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 nsVFG5zfxfUG for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E551A01D7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id s13IAuRk019076; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:56 -0800
Received: from XCH-PHX-313.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-313.sw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.175]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s13IAndt018511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:50 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-205.nw.nos.boeing.com (10.57.37.61) by XCH-PHX-313.sw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.175) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:49 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.102]) by XCH-BLV-205.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:10:49 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 prefix delegation
Thread-Index: AQHPIQZeEVV3nCWgQkC0s04abY7hyJqj02xw
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:10:48 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181C0A8C@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181C095B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAL10_BpTKHhfux8H7oYGuLYKEhZ5XQe7EokH_==2zCwBQFuPJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL10_BpTKHhfux8H7oYGuLYKEhZ5XQe7EokH_==2zCwBQFuPJw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:11:03 -0000

Hi Andre,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Kostur [mailto:akostur@incognito.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:36 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question on relay agent behavior in DHCPv6 prefix delegation
> 
> The RFC doesn't get into details since it may not even be the
> delegating router doing the route updates.   As an example, in a cable
> network, it may be the CMTS (who plays the role of Relay Agent from
> DHCPv6's perspective) who is snooping the PD traffic and may emit the
> appropriate routing updates into the network (using some other
> standard dynamic routing protocol such as OSPF).

Thanks for this. So, it seems that the RFC3633 DHCPv6 relays (and maybe
also servers) can snoop the PD exchanges and update the routing system
via some unspecified means. But, are there any more recent publications
that have either attempted or succeeded in specifying a standard method?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Templin, Fred L
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > Hi, RFC3633 says:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > My question is, since the publication of RFC3633 has there been a
> > new RFC published that specifies "a protocol or other out-of-band
> > communication to add routing information"?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andre Kostur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email