Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7C921F8517 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nh34jqlXnbEa for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A3A11E8236 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 r8BCAcSn027680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:38 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8BCAcVr019960; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:38 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r8BCAbNU026785; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:37 +0200
Message-ID: <52305DBD.1090501@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:37 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com> <52305986.2010503@gmail.com> <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <FB56FE0A-9088-4040-BCE7-C69399D64171@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:11:09 -0000

Le 11/09/2013 14:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
> Alexandru,
>
>>>> In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the term
>>>> 'provider edge router.' in a section describing the behaviour of
>>>> the Relay agent:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by that
>>>> 'provider edge router'. Because otherwise the term doesn't appear
>>>> elsewhere in the document.
>>>
>>> (Assuming you meant RFC3633) Yes, s/provider edge router/relay
>>> agent/
>>
>> Yes, I meant RFC3633, and yes s/provider edge router/relay agent.
>>
>> That would make for an errata that one could suggest in the errata site?
>
> I'm not sure I see what difference it would make?

Help others like me to understand the text?

The term 'provider edge router' means something to this protocol?

>>>> Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol is
>>>> needed between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean that
>>>> inserting a routing table should happen by that 'out-of-band' means
>>>> (and not 'out-of-band communication')?
>>>
>>> Not speaking for Ole, I meant that some other means, which might be a
>>> protocol, manual configuration, etc., is needed to add routing
>>> information into the relay agent.
>>
>> In that sense I agree with it.  It is thus a problem that is already explicit in this RFC.
>
> everyone does this with snooping today, but that's not covered by any RFC.
> the closest we got to exploring the options was in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-pd-route-maintenance-00

Noted, thanks.

Alex

>
> cheers,
> Ole
>