IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22

"Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe)" <elevyabe@cisco.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <elevyabe@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8681A01BA for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 EFIFmnskGhYb for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8D81A0186 for <savi@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1269; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398158464; x=1399368064; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sBBNH+yFowkuNZxPhQONVWELNWmxmV0qiGjKm8lhtXk=; b=S6n3k57GAEh+cYTuBYBow2RlD6R83djNrOk7lkZluRC8NtNxNhlc812P LGn2ADVk1iIowH/vEK3F2Wy+6bDcCmJqEPJ6QBrur0JzpWD75J6Z+UQUp 4O8xEgn+62hxFATlSOOjR8HLRKwuB4joJWFj8Tdiw6WjREA4Hjqe49yTr A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAMozVlOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZDoJ4gSbEFoEUFnSCLHkSAQgOaiUCBAENBYhBzC0XjlYHhDgBA5hwklKCcUCCKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,902,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="37699550"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2014 09:21:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3M9L2xI005879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:21:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.41]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 04:21:03 -0500
From: "Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe)" <elevyabe@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Guang Yao <yaoguang@cernet.edu.cn>
Thread-Topic: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22
Thread-Index: AQHPXgwt8FdOhs9nvUWZJnpcp77q9A==
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:21:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CF7BFCD2.38EA7%elevyabe@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0685C39-0755-4DBC-BED3-AF3684153ABC@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <3642B27867FC8E499FA7905041EB268B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/savi/sh-uRQ_MP89gavXcSbYrp3wamSc
Cc: "draft-ietf-savi-dhcp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-savi-dhcp@tools.ietf.org>, SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>, Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [savi] WGLC: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-22
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi/>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:21:13 -0000

On 21/04/14 18:31, "Ted Lemon" <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

>Do we really think there are modern layer 2 devices that will implement
>SAVI-DHCP that will not have IPv6 addresses?   This seems highly doubtful
>to me‹the devices that would only have layer two addresses would be
>unmanaged switches.   I have a cheap managed switch, and it has an IPv4
>address and a web server in it.   I think this is a non-problem.
>

The issue is not so much whether they have layer-3 capability, but rather
how they are being deployed. The one thing we cannot impose is to have a
layer-3 stack/address in every subnet a switch is operating on. An access
switch can deal with hundreds, sometimes thousands of links (vlans) and
while it will always have a layer-3 uplink for management purpose,
mandating one layer-3 downlink per vlan is often not operationally
acceptable.
For LeaseQuery, it's a slightly different issue (should not require one
layer-3 per vlan). It drives quite an operational provisioning complexity:
configuration, security, etc wise. . It is currently not very common to
deploy DHCP on access switches when the L2/L3 boundary is one layer up (on
aggregation/distribution). And I am not talking about the one you have at
home.
Eric

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email