IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Wed, 07 December 2011 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.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 5891321F8B95 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 05:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 K9Yr0r1L6grL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 05:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E6621F8BE4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 05:41:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=6086; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1323265260; x=1324474860; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=V3SIpw6FWSzKCq6ZW67uRig43srEUSrqbwpnu20dRTk=; b=aWc7EprTxKHuSaEh9JVuu8qnUMAaJOmqjijHifJCH64HG/2rxaPcXGFM YDJ/F0VC+5DfGWM1MFOOhAhI8uAKHsn+jzqmBYoAwWzAEwwFNnayNG7D/ JYrhHrf7Hb54HUUeGRGPb7XoxpV1lRn15x2ZL2jfVgC2t9b2S3Bs4aIph 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQAAJhs306tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABDgk2XVJAxgQWBcgEBAQMBEgEJEQNJBQcEAgEIEQQBAQsGFwEGASAlCQgBAQQTCBqHZZgFAZ4jilFjBIgulySHWw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.71,313,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="41868187"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2011 13:40:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB7Dex65029702; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:40:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:40:59 -0600
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCB4E5.DA9157C3"
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:40:58 -0600
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303778FAA@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D015FA6A-DBD9-4959-82F9-B23DCCE8FFA2@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude
Thread-Index: Acy0raWlG0rISBgKTlajqoiwYcpCdAAN1USA
References: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3037785BB@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <D015FA6A-DBD9-4959-82F9-B23DCCE8FFA2@gmail.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2011 13:40:59.0803 (UTC) FILETIME=[DAC92EB0:01CCB4E5]
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:41:01 -0000

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:59 AM
Cc: Ray Hunter; Ted Lemon; Thomas Narten; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude

 

 

> setup on the DR that is sending an RA with one exclude prefix if the
DR has 20K different IPV6 CE routers  as RR's?  The RA >is multicast
and, say, reaches 40K CE routers.   How is the exclude prefix working
with the multicast RA?

 

>Is this a real deployment scenario you are designing or already having
where you intend to use pd-exclude? My question >regarding this specific
example is why you would use RAs & SLAAC to configure 40K CE routers'
WAN links attached to a single >link (with one prefix) and then try to
apply pd-exclude in the first place? 

 

I do have a cable deployment where I can have the access concentrator
serving 100K PD clients.  The network would like to use the pd-exclude.
The reason I asked my question because one person already said, the DR
can use the RA so that the DR can address it's interface with SLAAC.
There are two choices for such a deployment and that is why I asked the
question.  Either the same exclude /64 is given to each of the 100K
clients or the network uses unicast RA.  Some IETF document has already
defined a unicast. 

 

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email