IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp: multiple pcp servers

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 30 September 2013 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7765921F89A6 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 rowdmIFIkTT4 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDB821F9B9F for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUkmWHJQ9JurfyAzPPQncd7yktu6B8NCC@postini.com; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:49 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20841B82E0 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D815D190070; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:17:47 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1811\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B71A24E@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:17:45 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BB34C67A-0B3A-4DD5-BA89-EABAA118765A@nominum.com>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B71A24E@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Reinaldo Penno <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1811)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp: multiple pcp servers
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:18:03 -0000

On Sep 30, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) <repenno@cisco.com> wrote:
> Is this a good formulation of the problem: "what does a client that
> receives multiple PCP server address should do if it can not (or does not)
> have code to make use of them?"

I think there are two issues that we are conflating into one:

1. Under what circumstances and through what mechanism would a DHCP client be configured with multiple PCP servers?
2. How does a PCP client deal with multiple PCP servers?

As I mentioned to Med, I think privately, I think there is no circumstance in which multiple PCP servers make sense for a single egress.   The situation where multiple servers do make sense is if the network is multihomed, or the client has multiple interfaces.   So I think it's actually a multiple provisioning domain problem, and that is the only case where we need to deal with this.

(See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch/ for details on the multiple provisioning domain problem.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email