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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Just to raise a gripe:

> What I am using is the standard linux "ip" command, as in:
> 
>   # ip route add <foo>
>   # ip route del <foo>
>   etc.

And wouldn't life be better if the IETF didn't have an aversion
to defining APIs, so that you could do that in an O/S independent
way?

Regards
   Brian

On 2018-11-22 10:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:59 AM
>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Naveen Kottapalli <[e-mail]>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>; v6ops list <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt
>>
>> On 2018-11-22 07:40, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
>>> Hi Mikael,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:23 AM
>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Naveen Kottapalli <[e-mail]>; Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>;
>>>> v6ops list <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
> 
> What I am using is the standard linux "ip" command, as in:
> 
>   # ip route add <foo>
>   # ip route del <foo>
>   etc.
> 
>> but in different boxes they would need a protocol, which
>> could of course be either proprietary or standardised.
> 
> Bernie contributed the point about relay agents gleaning route
> info from the DHCPv6 messages they forward. Actually, that is
> also what my LDRA code does, even though everything is all
> together in the same box.
> 
>> What's new here?
> 
> Nothing - but, that is a good thing.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
>>     Brian