Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 16 April 2012 02:03 UTC
Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB32821F8849 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 y3jlNHAfjSHq for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A2B21F85F6 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so1814400obb.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=sgj4wTAhapJYk9+6RJ8o6SCrM87Jdf5RS20d2+YZHVA=; b=jKf5KyRZVLt6llAfsJehMbcq3zXQtkgGXhKPp5dmzmC1VIBx4JXfFfMDLFHGqTcsXe TTk4uIXxUrvRptiaKyJcAN/LykRcsbhkWSLcAD8KyjJP0GVoVMZViI2qRgrEcRUx5EPA O+aJDTKmcg7ZAycLQZuoEMd8oMH4uVwTxexBsXJN54vP4aCXYKAxhu1QNspqlSAzOkUI /qVv3JJfM5hBgnJaDHCQ5ObqdZN6nHTKRjczgb3yNkvLBkkHcM6/V/Hyrwl7q6IwVUSp YDYRdjA88vTYtX59TcsmdUhfW/UAOEs7iVFaLX7JVF3h2tAEsXnOE9X0QTbnxkymndqY TI4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=sgj4wTAhapJYk9+6RJ8o6SCrM87Jdf5RS20d2+YZHVA=; b=Ae2g9qv/sam6uRAXSCcNUEpPoEDFiomO0wGZWeLIGK4HV0rIL66xnuriPcckmrA+Cu J6IK9bLW0QkjHjNci1gdfXPpVeWCh/S1H99udE1fWBJ4FMR2c8sFgDjuJxK7WpJulwxE QETD7Wb9XgUbCJ/VO9mLT2l/Qip2fn8e0VriaCxG5Svt/+eL+kvGRxFDyzi/6lkB5Xqx rENjCJl3uiWw8/DBISZvQkhzm1dvQ2Dw787z/pzPBep8p3t5Op3lTlVjFwH1PYKJDx2C gu5AlR93aJ2UZWcZIqP6askf8GPRYmg2KyGdP/lC+bDirT5PfjDCDQQQ687FNhuQOFq+ tcUw==
Received: by 10.182.177.101 with SMTP id cp5mr13687345obc.38.1334541809219; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.177.101 with SMTP id cp5mr13687327obc.38.1334541808993; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.220.3 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <17F90720-AA1F-4F74-9598-2E5A5AC813CE@nttv6.net>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <CAE97176.17DF4%wdec@cisco.com> <CANF0JMD_zfXGcfMy+rCOFXS1aCZ3RPHoRtkBeS8kDgOFcfQ8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <75D251D1-9828-4AFE-9BEF-B376E97133C7@nominum.com> <CANF0JMBbhrF0G=hSvcvyZAddAMW7oSO5KpzUmcJXCtwcnmyWOw@mail.gmail.com> <4A221CE5-ECF0-4E07-9329-E6BAA3F06A96@nominum.com> <4EC4AADB.8030803@piuha.net> <DD1241D5-B794-49C3-A3A2-4294248DDD10@gmail.com> <4F719186.3060507@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tSoDPcheriWdZEeKyhqpDANCP7Co0wVVqK5+mXc7e5A@mail.gmail.com> <4F72CD22.3080604@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUUthiawKrmxjSNqzEbJcOLpHvDGb9XLtdiU-tfEYyw@mail.gmail.com> <4F744831.3070406@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4175@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <4F7453FC.3010502@gmail.com> <4F74546D.4060808@gmail.com> <72C42575-6BE2-4F27-B7F4-AA4539DA7EF9@lilacglade.org> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43A1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <069301cd0dd2$5954df00$0bfe9d00$@tndh.net> <550B9F79-1642-469F-9ED3-96DA26AA40AB@lilacglade.org> <97D4F82A-6321-403F-9097-F7B48601DCD5@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hkGMm+mLSzpdWPcFLUcY3Hkyb+BDxh+5910YtfZxGD-A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+H2C9Zu3AS6aTxg1gebe0ZS2LXWmJjOPpbhaUHGZtXvF0UipQ@mail.gmail.com> <17F90720-AA1F-4F74-9598-2E5A5AC813CE@nttv6.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:03:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1s7SARfnowZV1uU=dDPi46-OjRQnM4otKsW3Y-k+84cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f83a51376855504bdc23a81"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmmlKJ0xAoJtDkUh21HgFTfQiL5R3wHFhCEnhl2zd+yVQfUxaGjA472TfWSiBfTxPLAl8eDiCpYh3IIzAS1d+yDnrcIJWaL9q0B5Sgdu83h46k4w/NcsFD7yCwXc8fKAL/1tWH+
Cc: MIF List Mailing <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:03:30 -0000
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 18:06, Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net> wrote: > RADIUS based approach needs standardization, implementation at the routing > equipments, and upgrade of RADIUS servers. > DHCP based approach needs upgrade of just the DHCP servers. > > How can we say this is not the show stopper ? > I don't think that's a valid argument. You could say exactly the same about RAs: "DHCPv6 based approach needs standardization, implementation at the host and CPE, and upgrade of DHCPv6 servers. RA based approach needs upgrade of just the edge routers. How can we say this is not a showstopper?" (Yes - my paragraph omits the fact that the RADIUS servers need to be updated. But your paragraph omits the fact that the hosts / CPEs need to be updated, too.) Basically, using DHCPv6 is pushing the state out of the network and on to the CPE or the host. I'm sure this is desirable if you're a network operator. However, it's not so desirable if you're a host or CPE developer. In general, I think pushing complexity and state to the host is fine, because hosts are the smartest entities in the network. However, I think that DHCPv6 is the wrong tool for the job, because its semantics (essentially, static configuration information that will not change for the duration of the lease, and cannot be invalidated if the DHCPv6 server goes away) are not rich enough to communicate routing information.
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] use cases - Router instead of Host (was… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Erik Kline
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Erik Kline
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tony Hain
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? jouni korhonen
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Wojciech Dec
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Tao Sun
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Maglione Roberta
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Maglione Roberta
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? jouni korhonen
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Behcet Sarikaya