Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

RADEXT is working on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-06
which adds attributes for RFC4191 use, for example. That is then also implicitly
available for Diameter.

Assuming unicast RA would be doable using just RFC6085, then there should not
be much, if anything, to do protocol wise. The router that gets provisioned per
host via AAA knows the l2-l3 mapping already.. and the AAA server also learns
it. For dynamic changes of routes, AAA server can use e.g. l2 or l3 addresses
for a session identification when it sends a change of authorization..

The assumption here is that each host gets separately authorized when they attach
the network, which might be an issue on some links & deployments. However, some
network architectures with multiple routers/gateways (can) already use AAA for
centralized address management at per host granularity.

- Jouni


On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Erik Kline wrote:

>> It's true, as Jari said, that this can be accomplished in other ways, and maybe it would be better if it would.   If there were some better central management solution for populating unicast RA mappings on the router, then unicast RA would indeed address the exact use case that I think we care about.   But without the mechanism for populating routers, we still have a poorly-addressed use case.   And then the question is, do we want to develop a whole new protocol just to solve this one small problem?
>> 
>> It might be worth developing the protocol just to put this issue to bed.
> 
> Is RADIUS suitable for this?  At one point it was the general
> non-client provisioning protocol of choice, I thought.  I have not
> been following any of the evolving diameter work, but would a RADIUS
> option suffice?
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif