IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt

Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Thu, 22 November 2018 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEC8130F40; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:10:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FmnWWI735LtE; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x242.google.com (mail-lj1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70A4D128D09; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id 83-v6so6617497ljf.10; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:10:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zQvy0+aMWG5WxQuvJKeEQKxcH2hWSeTtxsO3lU9CEOk=; b=f8qMxwZsaFsi9bCEQRzpz6wCW4IikF7Aj7E6P5PuG4AOPvCrhFI+bKLp0tuNv3DEAS uq80kKstWV6QFTDvaB/FGP+ZRuHdPpmEfMrHEFbE0cZoXAPrtcmY6iTzJgZlEQeJh/AX ic8N9eyEWm9A9C/nJNtXevrhyjq6uN64tyiu46A2DIxZr1xUvhbFvdgPIpCroFnm7KaN ijwQDfHrJUYNLTg8SxpRjjN2LQ5MZDukMj0+CxzaZZk3cWfA5XGnwzc97TQCYker6TTf 4/0dAv+wkI2LD94SiAo2IBcc6iiwXMrCxPop2MPgnFyM2plVcfUw4i6YGZuJsEhalYWW 9C0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zQvy0+aMWG5WxQuvJKeEQKxcH2hWSeTtxsO3lU9CEOk=; b=fxWNFpvDLaiNPm00N2w6Qk+5Ndhu50xEFQE2OFvkhc+0GerVc+eYIUS20eaypTI5T/ cMVNtobl3iQnma35+9lNr+7oQdbtByYH7WfnRThMST4cQqZf9WwdhV+2XUhz2+cTMJ5s Ocms2mvwzR0w/ICnO02cNjyAVOWawk2GgRjhNHz+jOP6mW1AsxJbWXYFetmUeWAJ26SL j1n9upfqPRBpkUNN0RGEXVpbhrsU5gSx3tVVa5/FCW52mOGLq2H8O85Gzb/oa1SreNMH N//WTJfrzIVEPHSvAnHVltUGs4Urf3n/B6vnoPi8nJ2pnnyCbYz5hFipMWfTqUDkqSaB q0Wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZhDKDez3XftWeLtZcD0Qw5n35Ryu2AgqkrAl6ssMbkAEvXDZ5Q AYgPS+Zdo7QOgOz2a//p5TzVvoom+C6YBOx07/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WewxFHPjWuz3e7ABWUOzj06oOQCT8uthwJXM3sbThbguuEEM/buIBCYQGrdV/QW5uNhHrd5qqSk9QaLMvxEa4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:914b:: with SMTP id q11-v6mr5479796ljg.164.1542856200511; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:10:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154155148848.30897.17784898234776136208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <995ff903-1df6-225a-8aaa-813db45d1dd2@gmail.com> <CANFmOt=VYMgPTL1SH6hsBCDEtZBAL9v_1k5a2QW0M7A-TRaXPA@mail.gmail.com> <50c10934-6ca8-00d0-73bd-cc6cf19ed213@gmail.com> <CANFmOt=DSi0Y=jBoNJFtFaJHDzFJ+61ZAN0L2a94efnfMBMh1w@mail.gmail.com> <430c94b29f3a49bd9fed24d8d78c6624@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811211109340.14216@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7ba4a7429e374385856002e361e0324e@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811211708220.14216@uplift.swm.pp.se> <51084397aa90410684c599a2cb1953d0@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811211724550.14216@uplift.swm.pp.se> <275c824aec1c46c9a4fd4775e97fa127@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811211903140.14216@uplift.swm.pp.se> <ccb7ae3b97c8430eb2422b2ed3c4505c@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811211920230.14216@uplift.swm.pp.se> <0f1eab2127ce49d2a7f3da56b053c741@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <0c56d7eb-e7a3-0640-9612-176c595897d0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0c56d7eb-e7a3-0640-9612-176c595897d0@gmail.com>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:39:52 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtmghy+7qB2Q=zE+uwW0FyapSts0FovsfKL5hY8vVToa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c56308057b3833c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DJ1D4-Byn9YmwF2EQ_30D_8j_Mc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 03:10:05 -0000

In our gateway too DHCPv6 is a separate entity for assigning IA_NAs to
devices, which is connected to the routing entity with a private or
unstandardized API.  Is there a scope for standardizing such API?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 01:28 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
wrote:

> On 2018-11-22 07:40, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > Hi Mikael,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:23 AM
> >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> >> Cc: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>; Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>;
> >> v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: RE: [v6ops] New Version Notification for
> draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> >>
> >>> That particular example does not relate specifically to the DHCPv6-ND
> >>> proposal; the proposal is not out to solve interactions between SLAAC
> >>> and DHCPv6, but in this particular example common sense should prevail.
> >>
> >> I know, and that's why I don't like it. I want this problem solved, not
> >> glossed over.
> >>
> >>> The LDRA is a DHCPv6 relay agent like any other. The behavior of DHCPv6
> >>> relay agents wrt prefix delegation is covered in RFC3633, Section 14.
> >>
> >> Errr, it's "covered" in the fact that it doesn't say how to do that.
> >>
> >> "If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router through
> >>     a relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or other
> >>     out-of-band communication to add routing information for delegated
> >>     prefixes into the provider edge router."
> >>
> >> It doesn't say "inspect the relayed message and guess that you might
> need
> >> to install a route and keep state for that route". How do you do this?
> >> I have seen several relay implementations that relayed the message just
> >> fine but didn't install any route, leaving the PD useless for the end
> >> user.
> >
> > In a case that I care about, the delegating router and relay agent are on
> > one and the same platform. So, the delegating router does just what the
> > spec says, and the relay agent's needs are satisfied. Maybe Ole can say
> > more about what is expected when the delegating router and relay
> > agent are on different platforms.
>
> Since DHCPv6 is a separate entity from any routing protocol, this
> is a case where inside a single box they could be linked by a privately
> defined API but in different boxes they would need a protocol, which
> could of course be either proprietary or standardised. What's new
> here?
>
>     Brian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email