IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 20 November 2013 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDB31ADF92; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XUphV83u88ls; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8411ADF8F; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E8F2036E; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B2C86A9042; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E58CB8EBE; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:03:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robmgl@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1D4ED850@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Kpp0dCqbZyFzwtjTh9UJ5hGHUMN0ZGQHUL35+mkO9VRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-rw5bsVa7UAiraxu-U2t1QGqPronYj3Fx6ZxoPWo0Zow@mail.gmail.com> <CABT9mj-sQbfiNyfUZDxVmCg7SYWaJXcp+pNbyUSj64iFSA5fuA@mail.gmail.com> <70913413-2B68-4703-84E3-F7CC47E1A0E2@cisco.com> <CABT9mj9Jg-5pM4JKKOOgqszarFj6eDHji_rHZkTw3Eknddaqdw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9CDF7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <B10FDF95-9612-4DD7-8C3E-9361CCBCA4E3@gmail.com> <CABT9mj-p3tjamspMo-F5vJRSCAWEVkvBEogFjAFrr4jL3p9vpw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD9D36C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CABT9mj8Gt==+m-JL2foTvZnU49EhSODN0595cb-P1jn9YQgE6Q@mail.gmail.com> <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1D4ED850@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:03:52 -0500
Message-ID: <13225.1384956232@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Athanasios Douitsis <aduitsis@gmail.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:04:04 -0000

Roberta Maglione (robmgl) <robmgl@cisco.com> wrote:
    > The reason why I think a new radius would be required is because you need to
    > differentiate between the scenario where Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used to number
    > the Wan link with a separate prefix (not included in the PD - without the
    > PD_EXCLUDE) and the scenario you described where the prefix for the WAN link is
    > part of the PD and you need to copy it into the PD exclude option.

    > Today the BNG (that in this case is acting both as RADIUS Client and Delegating
    > Router) has no mean to know if the  Framed-IPv6-Prefix should be used for the
    > PD_EXCLUDE or not and in my opinion it would be better not overload the
    > sematic of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix.

If the DHCPv6 server that is constructing the PD can know what how the WAN
link is numbered, then it can include the PD_EXCLUDE based upon a simple
calculation.

If one assumes the inclusion of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix in the DHCPv6 RADIUS
option added by a relay, then even if the DHCPv6 is not co-located, it could
know about the Framed-IPv6-Prefix.  That might not cover all situations
however, in particular, it won't cover cases where the WAN link was not
numbered as a result of RADIUS attributes.  Is a DHCP relay that isn't
talking to a radius server allowed to synthesize that attribute, or do we
need another way to do this?

Or we are just overthinking things?

Roberta, is PD_EXCLUDE widely implemented in CPEs that do 6204?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email