Re: [netlmm] Issue: MAG sends prefix hint to LMA (Was: Issue: Link-local address collision on the access link)

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 22 August 2007 16:16 UTC

Return-path: <netlmm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INsse-00042s-SL; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:16:28 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INssd-00042n-MN for netlmm@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:16:27 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INssd-0005AQ-8z for netlmm@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:16:27 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2007 09:16:26 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,295,1183359600"; d="scan'208"; a="204546513:sNHT45439947"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7MGGQh9012335; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:16:26 -0700
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l7MGGMpa029556; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:16:22 GMT
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:16:22 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Issue: MAG sends prefix hint to LMA (Was: Issue: Link-local address collision on the access link)
In-Reply-To: <353172.72667.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0708220910580.25616@irp-view13.cisco.com>
References: <353172.72667.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1578; t=1187799386; x=1188663386; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[netlmm]=20Issue=3A=20MAG=20sends=20prefix=20hint=20t o=20LMA=20(Was=3A=20Issue=3A=0A=20Link-local=20address=20collision=20on=20 the=20access=20link) |Sender:=20; bh=8Bc/nBpgnIYIbVKn1ouplR09nqau3tCCLLRT2DyHg5A=; b=hpDSl17xpTKPIlfju/aFvzL3Pw32Na2TgKQ8Ujj+ai/iPsuhD/wSijhyVtyLlwy5BnMd1DVc AceMzfapxLfJRrZxMH//AKGZkaKWAyH8ZAjeZRiYNgJspTzjri/9gxXz;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org

Behcet,

Yes, the hint for the requesting prefix can be carried
in the HNP Option. However, LMA should have the right
to accept or reject the request for that prefix. This is
one opinion.

Today, a DHCP client can specify an address in the DHCP
request. The same logic can go here.

However, there are other opinions on this.

Sri


On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> As we mentioned in draft-sarikaya-netlmm-prefix-delegation-00.txt conceptually LMA as the requesting router may provide a prefix hint to DHCP/ AAA server if PD is being used. How would MAG provide the hint, in HNP?
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Julien Laganier <julien.IETF@laposte.net>
> To: netlmm@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:23:31 AM
> Subject: [netlmm] Issue: MAG sends prefix hint to LMA (Was: Issue: Link-local address collision on the access link)
>
> On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>> Please comment on these open issues. So far, only
>> very few people commented on these issues. Please
>> express your preference for one of the suggested
>> options on each of these issues.
>>
>>
>> 3. Should MAG be allowed to a send a prefix hint
>>     to the LMA (Issue: 165 & 155)
>
> I think it is better to allow it, and doesn't badly impact those that
> don't think it's useful since the LMA can simply disregard the
> information.
>
> --julien
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm