Re: [v6ops] some feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-01

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Sat, 17 November 2012 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 7EB3F21F8765; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:19:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 CN-3RTB2UBT3; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5161E21F8206; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAHCJSkg010501; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:19:30 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk qAHCJSkg010501
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1353154770; bh=AWseN6Y2Uw8r40TUiuVKxt3HbbI=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=t6LbBvtCvVgg+/rMQeiKEmj+jsLgaN3kZMlRt0NoMp8hHgesidteMS69GG3OqSu+n LvNTYTY1kuhvv+DqNXqMdeZrzumOiBBiXU64bJPsrHUu98WbV1uLcxtX/UDV7MSH0Y AestAkookjTcUx3mhxUTZoy3o8sV9pJtuxqT8vRM=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id oAGCJS04306320666p ret-id none; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:19:30 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAHCI5Yc026344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:18:06 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1353109754.80634.YahooMailNeo@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:18:05 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|985a2b02dcaa8cbac4735a1bbfa1f0d3oAGCJS03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E22B54F6-A629-4FB7-91FC-522D9F64FC06@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <50A33EFA.7070008@bogus.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F8E40C@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50A59C1F.2040407@bogus.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F8E520@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50A5BB8E.6010308@bogus.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F8E5CB@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1353047488.86944.YahooMailNeo@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747408741@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <1353109754.80634.YahooMailNeo@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <E22B54F6-A629-4FB7-91FC-522D9F64FC06@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration@tools.ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=oAGCJS043063206600; tid=oAGCJS04306320666p; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: qAHCJSkg010501
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] some feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-registration-01
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: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:19:35 -0000

On 16 Nov 2012, at 23:49, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think there are advantages to keeping the mechanisms to collect information
> about hosts and their addresses independent of how those addresses are
> assigned or derived. 

I think this is a fair point.

I also can't help but think that there is likely to be some overlap between what this draft is trying to do, and what we might end up with as a result of the homenet and/or mdnsext work in extending zeroconf methods to home and enterprise/campus networks.

Simply for address usage tracking, we've found it sufficient to run tools that poll the switch/router infrastructure. We do that on a campus using open source tools and it works just fine, provided the polling is configured to take into account the expiration timers of the data being gathered from the devices. Where the tool is also aware of the all the network devices, their connectivity, prefix allocations, VLANs, switch port configurations, etc, then you have pretty much all you need for accountability. We also use 802.1X for wireless (eduroam) and are beginning to use it for wired ports as well.

I've not looked at Fernando's tool. I would assume it achieves the same thing in terms of address tracking, but I'd argue that integrating the polling/tracking with network monitoring/management tools that have the 'bigger picture' is advantageous.

Tim