RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegateand srsn-optiondrafts
"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> Fri, 05 January 2007 14:31 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2q6a-0004lQ-1a; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:31:36 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2q6Y-0004il-Hp for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:31:34 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2q6W-00034s-2j for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:31:34 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2007 06:31:31 -0800
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l05EVV3s010841; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:31:31 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l05EVUIl016286; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:31:30 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegateand srsn-optiondrafts
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:30:27 -0500
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2102EC1D8D@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegateand srsn-optiondrafts
thread-index: AccwRxx9R7oz5DskRUaweFku9rWcaAAjRjwA
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2007 14:31:30.0780 (UTC) FILETIME=[3112D1C0:01C730D6]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4067; t=1168007491; x=1168871491; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bernie=20Volz=20\(volz\)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20dhc=20wg=20last=20call=20on=20agentopt-dele gateand=09srsn-optiondrafts |Sender:=20; bh=kM6cCNh2tDthOwXlIdat7fhy6wVMgbLJYHYslxeg6u8=; b=M+vUwirNI94SIFd+lOS+QLemX0o7sBEB3a2jogx5ifWCKx1ff+G3BvDrZY1YaHJp/QFfVepV tr71yW/nB1zYfKowgFwtjR6eecvViCp92fxkq6A1+P8fBpwN/1LDnJlL;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b
Cc:
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
David: In a multiple relay (well, really router since we're talking about routing) situation, the routers need to have some protocol to communicate with each other and it is assumed that is how that is handled. This is no different than the initial lease (which likely is communicated via only one path); it is no different than other learned routes. If you have multiple partners participating, you need to have some way to distribute the information between them. This is left to the routers and is not up to DHCP to do, IMHO. Unless you have the DHCP server itself participate in the routing protocols, you really have no other options? If you were designing this, what would you do? - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: David W. Hankins [mailto:David_Hankins@isc.org] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:25 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegateand srsn-optiondrafts On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:23:29AM -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote: > OK. Then, can you (or someone who was involved in the earlier > discussions) summarize what other issues might remain? I think you mean me. Thomas had a complaint about the use of the word 'reliable', which I understand to have been cleared up in the edits that brought SRSN (since that bit was edited to reference the new draft). I think it was only us two who said something, so that just leaves me. The vast exchange between Bernie and myself (throughout the entire history of same) can be summarized I hope without offense: 1) "Turning DHCPv6 into a kind of RIP-like thing" (my critique) is possibly not the most robust network design modern men can invent (alternatives given). a) But it may be the easiest to implement for CMTS people, especially since CMTS already have to implement DHCPv6 relays. b) And isn't specified in this option anyway. The entire question of what you do with the contents of this option are left to implementors. It might just program an ACL for a formal routing protocol (although at least this purpose is one that does not strictly require the SRSN). 2) It falls down in multiple-relay (failsafe, not chained) scenarios. a) But there are no multiple-relay scenarios for CMTS, for which this is being designed. Such network designs have 'cold spares' not 'running peers' for fault tolerance. b) And our volunteer is, understandably, unwilling to design for multiple-relays. So there are arguments either way. For the record, I am abstaining from this WGLC, so nothing I just said or am about to say should be taken in support or objection, I just wanted to sum up for Fred. Overall, I'm a critic of the madness rather than the method. The view these discussions have afforded me into this sort of madness makes me rather glad I never worked for a Cable ISP. I can't imagine actually craving the situation where I ask a "router" to perform its duty without using a formal routing protocol, because the alternative is too horrid to imagine. In networks I have worked at, we've always had the opposite problem: lack of adequate routing protocol support being the horror we wished to escape [1]. But there you have it, and I accept it. That's where these CMTS operators are. I cannot speak in support, for then I am helping lock the cage they are trapped in, even if they say they like the decor. I cannot speak in objection, for then I am holding from them a coping mechanism. [1] On request, I can supply my copy of "OSPF", a song set to the tune of "YMCA" by _The Village People_. It was writ, and oft sung over beer, by a group of people who had the misfortune of working with me for a company with ~300 Ascends (and we RMA'd 30 a month). There is, of course, a much longer (but equally irrelevant) backstory behind its creation. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… David W. Hankins
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… Markus Stenberg
- RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on agentopt-delegate… Woundy, Richard