Re: [dhcwg] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt

Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> Fri, 08 August 2003 15:20 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14840 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:20:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l92D-0001SB-9M for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:20:05 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h78FK56g005582 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:20:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l92D-0001Rx-3B for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:20:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14802 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l92C-0001Rs-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:20:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l92B-0001Rp-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:20:03 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l929-0001QZ-LP; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:20:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l91L-0001IB-2a for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:19:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14764 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l91K-0001RX-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:19:10 -0400
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l91J-0001RG-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:19:09 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (144.254.74.60) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2003 17:18:12 +0200
Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h78FGO5e022508; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:16:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from otroan@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id QAA29241; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:18:37 +0100 (BST)
X-Authentication-Warning: mrwint.cisco.com: otroan set sender to ot@cisco.com using -f
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt
References: <200308081502.h78F2aFh011436@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:18:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200308081502.h78F2aFh011436@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> (Thomas Narten's message of "Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:02:36 -0400")
Message-ID: <7t5d6fg89f6.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.2.95 (usg-unix-v)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Thomas,

>> you are correct that the document doesn't say that the requesting and
>> delegating routers have to be on the same link.
>
> I would assume that  making such a requirement would be not
> appropriate, because it would effectively restrict DHC itself...

it would certainly make these options more of a special case than fit
nicely into the DHCP model as they do now.

>> the issue one has to consider is with regards to whom is going to
>> inject a route for the delegated prefix into the delegator's routing
>> system. if the routers are directly connected the delegating router
>> can inject a route on behalf of the requesting router. if you use a
>> relay agent it becomes a bit more tricky. we didn't want to require a
>> dynamic routing protocol between the requesting and delegating
>> routers.
>
> Can we be silent on the issue? It might in general be easier to get
> routes injected properly if the two routers share the same link. But
> there are other ways of doing this. Since this document doesn't in
> general even say anything about route injection, saying little or
> nothing on this seems OK to me.

agree, there are as you say many ways of doing route injection, and
exploring them all in detail doesn't seem feasible for this document.

two options, either we remove the below paragraph altogether, and if
ever DHCP with IPsec gets defined elsewhere that would also apply to
these options, or we change the paragraph to say that if the
requesting and delegated routers have configured addresses or are
directly connected then IPsec may be used.

   Because a requesting router and delegating routers must each have
   at least one assigned IPv6 address, the routers may be able to use
   IPsec for authentication of DHCPv6 messages.  The details of using
   IPsec for DHCPv6 are under development.

cheers,
Ole

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg