Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

["Leaf Yeh" <[e-mail]>]

Indeed, the draft might need more text on the Problem Statement for the
convincing power & easy understanding ...

I guess the PS text should focus on the requirement of route aggregation on
PE for the customer's PD prefixes and the possible solutions ...


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:48 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

Le 23/08/2013 14:29, Leaf Yeh a écrit :
[...]
> That sounds a new chapter of this draft. I suspect I will have a 
> chance to join. :-) LOL :-)

What would be the toc of this DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation and Relay Problem
Statement?

Alex

>
>
> Best Regards,
> Leaf
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:20 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Ralph Droms; [e-mail] WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>
> BTW - I think I may have indicated this before, but does this really 
> avoid the need for configuration on the router (relay)? How are items 
> such as the link-address and next hop (dhcp server) addresses 
> configured (rfc 3315 has a multicast default)? So there is still a 
> bunch of "manual" configuration required? Admittedly you do say "more 
> automation" but not really sure that has a lot of value - perhaps we need
a Dynamic Router Configuration BOF?
>
> - Bernie (from iPad)
>
> On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:15 AM, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Roberta,
>
> Yes, as indicated in the document, manual configuration is an option. 
> but it has its limits too.
>
> This proposal is a contribution to add more automation to network 
> configuration without requiring an additional dynamic protocol to 
> drive how aggregates are built in a router co-located with a 
> requestor, and therefore interact in a more dynamic fashion with a 
> routing protocol (e.g., drive route withdrawals, etc.).
>
> Of course, some routers can offer some features to optimize the size 
> of routing tables and prevent from injecting (very) specific entries. 
> But still this behavior is implementation-specific and does not 
> provide the same aggregation level as the one proposed in this document.
>
> Unlike implementation-specific behaviors, this proposal is 
> deterministic since it is fully controlled by the entity which has the 
> full knowledge of prefix related states and network policies: e.g., 
> the server has the knowledge of prefix assignment, prefix assignment 
> policies, prefix aggregates, etc.
>
> I confirm this option is not a per-customer configuration parameter.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
> De : Roberta Maglione [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : jeudi 22 
> août 2013 22:31 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Ralph Droms; 
> [e-mail] WG Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
>
> Hello,
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm struggling to see the value 
> added by this new option in terms of route aggregation functionality.
> Today with IPv4 if I need to summarize some routes I manually 
> configure on the router a summary/aggregate route and I announce it 
> into the routing protocol. Moving to IPv6 you could do the same thing, 
> I don't quite get what's wrong with that?
> You say you would like to have an automatic way to tell the PE to 
> aggregate the routes, but if I understand correctly the proposal what 
> you are doing here is only moving the configuration of the summary 
> route from the PE to the DHCPv6 Server; what do you really save here?
> In addition the route aggregation is not a per customer configuration, 
> it would be per box or per service configuration so why do you want to 
> add it to customers' profile in DCHPv6 Server?
> Thanks
> Roberta
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Re-,
>
> IMHO, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate does not cover the same 
> objectives as in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt.
>
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt aims to provide a dynamic means 
> to trigger route advertisement actions and to control the route 
> aggregates to be injected using a routing protocol. For example, a 
> router can be told by the DHCP server to advertise an aggregate even 
> if not all individual prefixes are assigned to customer located behind 
> that router. This is a measure that can help in optimizing routing 
> tables and avoid injecting very specific routes. Snooping the 
> assignment and then guide the route advertisement actions may not be 
> lead to the same optimized routing tables, because there will be "holes"
that will prevent aggregating routes.
>
> Having an explicit channel like the one specified in 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la 
>> part de Ralph Droms Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 14:48 À : Alexandru 
>> Petrescu Cc : [e-mail] WG Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested 
>> in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM 8/21/13, Alexandru Petrescu 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> One point I think is essential is the installment of routes in the 
>>> DHCP Relay upon Prefix Assignment.
>>>
>>> The base DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC does not stipulate that DHCP 
>>> must install a route in the DHCP Relay upon delegation.
>>>
>>> This draft seems to at least assume it, and to describe much more 
>>> about
>>> it: how various parts of assigned prefixes are aggregated and
>> communicated.
>>>
>>> I support it.
>>
>> After a quick read, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate seems to 
>> have been aimed at the same problem.  If I have that right, it might 
>> be instructive to review the dhc WG mailing list discussion that lead 
>> to the abandonment of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate.
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Le 21/08/2013 14:41, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>>> Hi Tomek,
>>>>
>>>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a 
>>>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control 
>>>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of 
>>>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be 
>>>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band 
>>>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the 
>>>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior 
>>>> because the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix 
>>>> assignments; and therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
>>>>
>>>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental 
>>>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real 
>>>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Med
>>>>
>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- De : [e-mail] 
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Tomek Mrugalski 
>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 19 août 2013 16:52 À : dhcwg Objet : [dhcwg] Anyone 
>>>>> interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6- prefix-pool-opt?
>>>>>
>>>>> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in 
>>>>> the prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in 
>>>>> the room. The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I 
>>>>> just wanted to confirm that on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and 
>>>>> participate in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing 
>>>>> list. Otherwise we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead 
>>>>> WG document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernie & Tomek _______________________________________________
>>>>> dhcwg mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list 
>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg