Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <aduitsis@gmail.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 A369E1ADF60; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 t35I6npyMq9G; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC1D1ADF44; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so4868070iec.30 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SeO5uhpZRId+vkxU8MmfshD2DlSfESRkRR8NmwBYld4=; b=B/m/y16mlKnxRkBVwJPyWPfbe1zbsoX7vY8wVP+jqNPV9+SQsRhF7OrHjNyENrw3rY bnVbGBpLFxj4l5+79Sm+IqdZqgD6CiOZ2OOOTuiBxqFP8G3meRJfw90SgQGA6gTT/eUG O45shEPrJZcRSrPbZSNtwMbBRloo09APHSMg5VZWUxzzwmsC/UaGJnpp/Ei1yxX4s41C MyOy+SctgMShMGDgICtz1pqysp/BI4rDvWMIZVYANLUfIqXlq+kGfOm/1UAO6a+8TVWq 96eBNpxdm3W1mDQk8ToOvNB0AxEiQwjBn9pSXZcM4qpr8gxLO0TzYmD+qHo7pg1aGu98 9W6Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.73.74 with SMTP id j10mr18633108igv.50.1384864772351; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.227.168 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:39:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228a3cd17fe404eb86f461
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Roberta Maglione \(robmgl\)" <robmgl@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and 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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:39:40 -0000

Hello (thanks for the answer),

The uplink connection between the delegating and the requesting router will
be in many cases enumerated with a prefix dictated by the
Framed-IPv6-Prefix value. If this uplink prefix is going to be a part of
the greater prefix that will be delegated, we would in effect have to
include the value of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE.

Example, if a delegating router makes a RADIUS request and gets the
following attributes in the reply:

Framed-IPv6-Prefix='2001:dead:beef::/64'
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix='2001:dead:beef::/56'

Then the delegating router should
1)send an RA in the client uplink interface with 2001:dead:beef::/64. The
uplink is enumerated with that /64.
2)Afterwards, when requested for PD, it should reply with the
2001:dead:beef::/56 to the requesting router, but excluding the
2001:dead:beef::/64 from that /56 by putting it in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE.

So in effect, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix has been copied in the
OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option.

If I have misunderstood something in the RFC or the discussion, I'd be
grateful if you would correct me.

Thanks very much,
Athanasios










On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Why would it ever be copied into that option? That makes no sense to me.
>
> - Bernie (from iPad)
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "Athanasios Douitsis" <aduitsis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>  (i.e. have a configuration option to use the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value in
>> the prefix exclude option instead of an RA)
>
>
>  Correction, the above is incorrect, as has been rightly pointed.
>
>  Are there any cases where the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value will not be
> copied as-is in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE value?
>
>
>
>
>    _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>


-- 
Athanasios Douitsis