[renum] Parameterized IP-Specific configuration

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 20 November 2012 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B315D21E804B; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:58:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6THzCccgMXKf; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637EF21F880B; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:58:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALS36324; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:58:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:57:32 +0000
Received: from SZXEML441-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.179) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:58:00 +0000
Received: from SZXEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.37]) by szxeml441-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.179]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:57:48 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: "renum@ietf.org" <renum@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Parameterized IP-Specific configuration
Thread-Index: Ac3GytyaCifxN5uFQxWNBrqucXz6Pw==
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:57:48 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453CAB2737@szxeml509-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Cvoq Ejoh GFJu HncF IbnU L5zq VYJ5 XuKW ZFTw bNIk oX4u qx0D uW+q v5gQ v9/h xGyH; 7; YgByAGkAYQBuAC4AZQAuAGMAYQByAHAAZQBuAHQAZQByAEAAZwBtAGEAaQBsAC4AYwBvAG0AOwBpAHAAdgA2AEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnADsAbABlAGUAQABhAHMAZwBhAHIAZAAuAG8AcgBnADsAcgBlAG4AdQBtAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnADsAcwB0AGkAZwBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtADsAdABqAGMAQABlAGMAcwAuAHMAbwB0AG8AbgAuAGEAYwAuAHUAawA7AHcAZQBzAGwAZQB5AC4AZwBlAG8AcgBnAGUAQAB0AHcAYwBhAGIAbABlAC4AYwBvAG0A; Sosha1_v1; 7; {C765E0DF-82B5-4DBE-BA0B-41A6F6EB84A9}; bABlAG8ALgBsAGkAdQBiAGkAbgBnAEAAaAB1AGEAdwBlAGkALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:58:17 GMT; UABhAHIAYQBtAGUAdABlAHIAaQB6AGUAZAAgAEkAUAAtAFMAcABlAGMAaQBmAGkAYwAgAGMAbwBuAGYAaQBnAHUAcgBhAHQAaQBvAG4A
x-cr-puzzleid: {C765E0DF-82B5-4DBE-BA0B-41A6F6EB84A9}
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@cisco.com>
Subject: [renum] Parameterized IP-Specific configuration
X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <renum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/renum>
List-Post: <mailto:renum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:58:04 -0000

Hi, all

This is not talking about a new idea. The " Parameterized IP-Specific configuration" comes from the 6renum WG item, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04#page-11

The draft is under 6renum WGLC, according to the comment in the Atlanta meeting, we need your review/comment of whether the "Parameterized IP-specific configuration" is a proper expression.
And if you still have other comments of the document, that would be also appreciated very much.

Thanks a lot.

B.R.
Bing


****For your convenient, abstract the original texts here****
(In draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04#page-11)

6.3. Parameterized IP-specific Configuration

   Besides the DNS records and the in-host server address entries, there
   are also many places in which the IP addresses are configured, for
   example, filters such as ACL and routing policies, etc. There are
   even more sophisticated cases where the IP addresses are used for
   deriving values, for example, using the unique portion of the
   loopback address to generate an ISIS net ID.

   Ideally, a layer of abstraction for IP-specific configuration within
   various devices (routers, switches, hosts, servers, etc.) is needed.
   However, this cannot be achieved in one step. One possible
   improvement is to make the IP-specific configuration parameterized.
   Two aspects of parameterized configuration could be considered to
   achieve this.
...

Here's an example (not in the draft, just for your easy understanding the above texts.)
First, we define the addresses for a given interface interface gigabitethernet1/1
ipv4 address 192.0.2.10/24
ipv6 address 2001:db8::10/64

Note that these addresses could also be automatically configured using DHCP or SLAAC, perhaps then the example would be:
Interface gigabitethernet1/1
ipv4 address dynamic dhcp
ipv6 address dynamic dhcpv6

then elsewhere in the configuration:

access-list example1
permit ipv4 any [gigabitethernet1/1] mask /24 #this permits any ip address that matches the prefix assigned to the interface in brackets [], in the range defined by the subnet mask at the end of the command permit ipv6 any [gigabitethernet1/1] mask /48 #this is the ipv6 equivalent, but permits any address in the entire /48

Similar examples could be possible for a BGP session, snmp source address, etc. Anywhere else you would hard-code an IP address could use a parameter to invoke an address inherited from an interface.