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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 0F0CF1A00E4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 06:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 6uP0fgay3rdf for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 06:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB51A0135 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 06:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s14E5h9w001968 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:05:43 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 829AD2029FE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:06:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A75D2007F6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:06:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s14E5gVG022008 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:05:43 +0100
Message-ID: <52F0F3B6.4020505@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:05:42 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181C095B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAL10_BpTKHhfux8H7oYGuLYKEhZ5XQe7EokH_==2zCwBQFuPJw@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181C0A8C@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181C0A8C@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:05:48 -0000

Le 03/02/2014 19:10, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> 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?

Solutions (like 'snooping') to the problem have been explored in a 
number of documents at IETF and others.

I with co-authors have attempted to formulate it as a problem in October 
2014, and analyzed some solutions
"Route Problem at Relay during DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation"
draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00.txt

Alex

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>