IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@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 EFC5111E8072 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 tNHN3-MdDNmu for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F5821F85FF for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so237194qcs.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; bh=0wBC1oWKG2BmoivbKVAgaIgtsMtySfJTx6ya+GCm8VI=; b=aSsO4OHgI2+IqKe6dQrdC5ChP4lCBIyURepT4rlG/vMG9IKvZQXTewBxiYRwUjFuJi p/uMsABO466E0T2fW95tgYlkGa9SMdAzcOerNuFzolSpkcBB9Kh7BpHcDxhWa7Y9/e7Z 4ezEb8mpwg45UwH8jAs22oTBv8U/LZuJz/rfV3qRVA5y+20WD5iplxo0GPHggPo1X5Lz fkB/WRsSW1Lje1lrPOFmqPAU+EFV/uo+4Jtx31C2ffY3JWWxZADIK988QvoeHizNZNSp hh2gsBElj1MW0lg5M731Bw+s9bi0k7fVyIk4tOGfyBZJFHxKh9YLmYPCBP1xqU+IK4YN lycw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=0wBC1oWKG2BmoivbKVAgaIgtsMtySfJTx6ya+GCm8VI=; b=feP8qiS6IK+yzSDZ5RbRl4Gprw4r+k4qYjkD6Qp3JXp8lHs1Ya6BOTxJd4WIjHAm0h wHxfqVk67URQ4c35dz4yksO/vzMokOwVoZGqfJdoqrwhL0DrSAh7nhT5cB3oCKkoL1BB N1TV2VSzi5SBtn/BWUzYwTyHFVRBRwlLimiQs1RYqr/kZT9dtP5SIbt5KxGa7nN5T//1 FIZbonvrBTn5e5xsj7SBw4iCQsF82UUMY+cBtN8xG+VhGNGyrguZxllPSCaIgxs0MtQv aVHKDfgTx+llELDJUwFJJd82i9EEVbXExyeukrC1O8PrP+ziqhmf8nWtMAv7v5DZUVe1 KLOg==
Received: by 10.224.181.69 with SMTP id bx5mr16187640qab.49.1333504399759; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.181.69 with SMTP id bx5mr16187630qab.49.1333504399608; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.128.170 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D47A7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
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> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D47A7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:53:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpMtu_7jWuES5=EKK4oqsFsvt4tPpu0J4fy3Uz4-TEt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3Bt2OM33wRWdiI2hr4tv265ZOon3NvfaLmgWO1LsORzuk7SvJg6ulhxdFaHjx1yxXsAiIlPQdCCThqp5c4OUILGp5goiubiQvhB2uEKD8+BgHDBidJBbnK3rx4Gi6vMQctjep
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:53:21 -0000

> 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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email