Re: [L3sm] [l3sm] #22 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): pe-dhcp vs provider-dhcp terminology

["Ogaki, Kenichi" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Although the data model uses the term pe-dhcp, I still prefer provider-dhcp, because the case exists that PE just works as a DHCP-relay and DHCP server sits outside PE. This should depend on each provider's implementation.

Meanwhile, if it's allowed at this phase and can make a consensus with other providers, I want to add a dhcp-relay option where a customer deploys own dhcp server and requests PE to relay dhcp messages to the server.
It's our real use case.

text proposal:

   o  dhcp-relay : the customer deploys own DHCP server(s) for their equipments and will request PE to relay DHCP messages to the server(s), this is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing.

...
    identity dhcp-relay {
        base address-allocation-type;
        description
         "Customer deployes own DHCP server(s) and requests PE to relay DHCP messages to the server(s).";
    }
...
            container ipv4 { //same as ipv6
                ...
                container dhcp-relay {
                    when "../address-allocation-type = 'dhcp-relay'"
                      {
                         description
                          "Only applies when address allocation type is dhcp-relay"; //not protocol, but address
                     }
                    leaf-list server-address {
                        type inet:ipv4-address;
                        description
                         "Describes the customer's DHCP server address(es)";
                    }                    
                }
                ...
            }

All the best,
Kenichi

-----Original Message-----
From: L3sm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of l3sm issue tracker
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 2:34 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [L3sm] [l3sm] #22 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): pe-dhcp vs provider-dhcp terminology

#22: pe-dhcp vs  provider-dhcp terminology

 Section 5.2.1.2.1 titled "IP addressing" mentions provider-dhcp as one of  the possible IP address allocation scheme. I believe this replaces  deprecated value pe-dhcp since provider-dhcp is nore generic but pe-dhcp  still shows up in other sections of the document.

 identity address-allocation-type {
         description
          "Base identity for address-allocation-type
          for PE-CE link.";
     }
     identity pe-dhcp {
         base address-allocation-type;
         description
          "PE router provides DHCP service to CE.";
     }
     identity static-address {
         base address-allocation-type;
         description
          "PE-CE addressing is static.";
     }
     identity slaac {
         base address-allocation-type;
         description
          "Use IPv6 SLAAC.";
     }


 Additionally, a condition refers to former pe-dhcp in error, I believe the  description should also mention provided-DHCP as opposed to static. This  same error is present in both ipv4 and ipv6 containers.

 leaf number-of-dynamic-address {
                     when
                     "../address-allocation-type = 'pe-dhcp'"
                      {
                         description
                          "Only applies when
                          protocol allocation type is static";
                     }
                     type uint8;
                     default 1;
                     description
                      "Describes the number of IP addresses the
                      customer requires";
                 }

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---
 Reporter:  [e-mail]         |      Owner:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-
     Type:  defect                   |  [e-mail]
 Priority:  trivial                  |     Status:  new
Component:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-   |  Milestone:
  service-model                      |    Version:
 Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/22>
l3sm <https://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>

_______________________________________________
L3sm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm