IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-07.txt

Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com> Fri, 11 May 2012 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <radext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E5521F860B; Fri, 11 May 2012 04:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1336735696; bh=LtIf7FBtZvnqg3ldZNMZ213sZo6152nyeXn5AA2twh0=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=y7VzkonB/RJ5MwjCISriqqutJ3ZVZOkwFQeL7NrlhYQZnTADbu4y/M8+ZeadN8nv+ 37vjin4rWaqIKMFwMOAOEHT/qR2QRTOGGGE7dbRtm4TU2SYUMavHLnu0dyXgpQDEYD FBw92ieFJLlaslsryntQ0uEdeGjCmj+lbMOmnIew=
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7830921F860B for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 04:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 daKAMAo0xxVU for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DF821F8606 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=wdec@cisco.com; l=2034; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336735694; x=1337945294; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=vOtAh0RR5Elsr//wA0u0PQVOkruZUQSM9sXXg244nAA=; b=YQ2XZn/0c/FwGrebhYcEqc0FEK08p9UNQp2M4AICcm1fKUjCm4NCL7Tk xje1xRJpf38mpKZ3vNF2jIQZZRDQD7dKOExL6w3SLmzA1uCarA5B0+ake 3sukiN3QqTFRBVf9ETZMoFupCQuATHMQOsJ+Tigno4Xpkww3KM72n7SfE M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAOj2rE+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABEsgcBAYIbgQeCFQEBAQMBEgEKHQIBMRANAQiBHQIEARIJGYdnBQuaeaAbixcZhgQElX2BEY1GgWmCa4Fd
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,570,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="72976935"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2012 11:28:13 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4BBSDjJ025222; Fri, 11 May 2012 11:28:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-112.cisco.com ([144.254.74.87]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 May 2012 13:28:13 +0200
Received: from 10.61.100.51 ([10.61.100.51]) by XMB-AMS-112.cisco.com ([144.254.74.87]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 11 May 2012 11:28:12 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:28:09 +0200
From: Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>
To: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CBD2C469.1E0C5%wdec@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [radext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNLFneQkQleKjX90CL1w6gppUCXZbETbjAgAAr3GA=
In-Reply-To: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA262E291F@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2012 11:28:13.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[26FA45A0:01CD2F69]
Subject: Re: [radext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-07.txt
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: radext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: radext-bounces@ietf.org

Hello Leaf,

Thanks for your feedback. We'll make the necessary editorial changes and
resubmit the draft.

Answering to some of your specific queries below, and also call for the
chairs attention and guidance if appropriate here.

On 11/05/2012 12:44, "Leaf yeh" <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com> wrote:

> 2.4  Delegated IPv6 Prefix Pool
> 
> <quote>Since DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation can conceivably be used on the same
> network as SLAAC, it is possible for the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool
> and Framed-IPv6-Pool attributes to be included within the same
> packet. To avoid ambiguity in this scenario, use of the Delegated-
> IPv6-Prefix-Pool attribute should be restricted to authorization and
> accounting of prefix pools used in DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation and the
> Framed-IPv6-Pool attribute should be used for authorization and
> accounting of prefix pools used in SLAAC. </quote>
> 
> I am still not sure why we can't use 2x Framed-Pool (88 defined in RFC2869)
> attributes for this case? One Framed-Pool (88) is for DHCPv6, the other
> Framed-Pool (88) is for SLAAC.

This point and specific question has been discussed both on the mailing list
and during the IETF 82 meeting and consensus established as per the meeting
minutes (see point 2):
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/minutes?item=minutes82.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg02318.html

> 
> I quote the description of 'Framed-Pool' in RFC2869 here, 'This Attribute
> contains the name of an assigned address pool that
> SHOULD be used to assign an address for the user. If a NAS does
> not support multiple address pools, the NAS should ignore this
> Attribute. Address pools are usually used for IP addresses, but
> can be used for other protocols if the NAS supports pools for
> those protocols.'
> 
> 
> 2.5  Stateful IPv6 address Pool
> 
> I still have not got the reason why we can't use 'Frame-Pool' instead of this
> new attribute.

This is the same question, and same answer applies.

Thanks,
Woj.



_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
radext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email