IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Intro to draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-00

Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz> Thu, 04 October 2018 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@helix.net.nz>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76B4130E12 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 1OpSQSO36NY0 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F067130DFB for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id t7-v6so7466722ioj.13 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3peoQ84tuA0S4WlhLcVpgLuQ9/ujrpNicrmApFSNebE=; b=uia6bdFWpGFgonSRqiVtLgIIcyKmP095IaPE425OCeRo3SuxdbBMn3wWFyXZm0F/dF PAP6cwR8SIlHuk+h3Stu3FKIklujo5hhHmnZEpAaUDCJ9kU8wVZZUZpG4SEP133lGUUE aNYjsAxigtvMhSq2NsOVZJ7pMP95xnE837pAriN8ORYE+/qr3khq9cDJFDv3I9N+B6sc DqwJdbotZlQiefEq/9C0zMXU2O0UkGcsqNQ6jDP9GB+hsjNHjX2zvCIl5sxa1Yqe30NM TbdTceVYecCb8X4h3zmJ+KoBzWqfA+4dXL5Zqf62yW7ERdR5Dn/71jDi08O+8fO6ZTvV SCow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3peoQ84tuA0S4WlhLcVpgLuQ9/ujrpNicrmApFSNebE=; b=kSKl2ReYImS+u/k5l/ptbp3Bqte9b1NjqOq2rZsiCZ1w3L/BtHD5+5yDhXVnjENJ19 ok9TMY4UHTZV9Km35lqzuKmhyL/1t7jiO8Y1QLRa+1LjTD3potX60T4okjCOkUicmTIF bCy2qTShqxVhYeRXjUgDxMtiTloFP2mFkiJajXN1K3A0d4Il56zCkm+PrB8RKT6Iy7BS 3Kj5ZfKJ9ZzEbid1w/FteUU9U/Al1Q/qqVuuJJ9LL+VqXcGUsip9+3ZwQrsdYTQUDuym 959nEEExBMdv4hz6nQm6y80rko5kj+4RYVOJ41tKhUDdCBH69bJlK4oZJFozCt9gbrBq r3LA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohbWl/PH2DvBziu0LxAETV0xqmx6uFbG4KvbTlKKbLUumLOeylA 8U53vEn4IwpIzikXDesWaEB3JP9+w/iIBw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62bvrSxVvtAApe7eHRvkjBnSGZesOpXh0bUdqi3qyrkm4AxPxMAlM9pKE/sE5yqfEJoM/cr3Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f815:: with SMTP id o21-v6mr4155560ioh.203.1538650103624; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com. [209.85.166.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q123-v6sm1344395iod.23.2018.10.04.03.48.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id q4-v6so7492654iob.8; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9b42:: with SMTP id d63-v6mr3652347ioe.183.1538650102782; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHL_VyDqrn4jmkWxqXJEgaBaJqy-RdqNvjPH=SWc5brpcScE4Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DED59D4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAHL_VyAXuDnESoKcowBug-VTkw0_qpK-5qjnQ6ATz-cko2UgrA@mail.gmail.com> <56B2584A-CD70-4EA9-A7B1-06447B0F1667@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <56B2584A-CD70-4EA9-A7B1-06447B0F1667@employees.org>
From: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:48:11 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAHL_VyCkGS8rV2Sfg80dOmLsPz8ahhhWUyN+muCCvFOu=XGvig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHL_VyCkGS8rV2Sfg80dOmLsPz8ahhhWUyN+muCCvFOu=XGvig@mail.gmail.com>
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "v6ops@ietf.org list" <v6ops@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/oY6uXemvcTfpoc5UJ2dGB5TCZgw>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Intro to draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-00
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:48:26 -0000

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> Requiring the DHCP option makes a big difference in deployability.
> Without it, I can implement this feature today. With it, I have to wait until the DHCP option is standardised. And we would presumably get into a big debate about what CE routers should do in the cases where they don’t get a DHCP option. Should they try this mechanism anyway?
>
> We have not requied explicit configuration in the other cases where we have recommended this mechanism. Ref. RFC5969.
>
> While the echo mechanism requires some special provisioning on the local system (ensure that ingress filtering isn’t blocking packets with yourself as source) I am not aware of anything on the PE that woukd block this. If there is consensus on that, I think it’s perfectly fine to require this mechanism on by default in CE routers.
> Although we might add some specifics to deal with a case where DHCP was successful, state in PE was correct, but health check still failed.


Perfectly valid reasoning.   Personally I'm not too hung up on
requiring the DHCP option, but thought it was useful. If we think it's
going to be a large barrier to implementation, I'm happy to remove it
and then emphasise the warmup period concerns within the Startup
section.

As a side-note, is it really that challenging or slow to get a new
DHCP option assigned?  Perhaps I'm showing my naivety here.

-Rich

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email