Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency
Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 13:30 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 30AFC11E81BC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Z1+xbwzf8k4R for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A19B21F9FE7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUmUsWLo9LUeIh3XceO1JXIcMwWoUZDho@postini.com; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:30:00 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E731B82A3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7092190052; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:29:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:29:59 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1812\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr10d2GYXYeF+N6Zn8tbBRw3qquHxCNxLUzw8u4RBE9V8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:29:57 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D33E84FC-1F5D-484C-8822-E304783DBA33@nominum.com>
References: <201307301245.r6UCj0k13216@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <3FA123B5-FC2C-4934-BD64-87D3E515D333@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr10d2GYXYeF+N6Zn8tbBRw3qquHxCNxLUzw8u4RBE9V8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "homenet-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <homenet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:30:40 -0000
On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:38 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote: > Actually, I'm not sure this is the right approach. For example, it would seem to be incompatible with the homenet approach of acquiring configuration via DHCPv6 at the edge of the homenet network and then passing that information around inside the homenet. It's not clear to me that there is a problem here. In a multi-homed scenario, a host on the homenet is either going to do DHCP with multiple CE routers, in which case this works, or with a single CE router, in which case this works. If the homenet does cascaded DHCP, then each DHCP server would cascade unknown options toward the edge, but that's a bad model—only CE routers should be doing DHCP anyway in a homenet, IMHO. But that is certainly a discussion to be had on the homenet mailing list.
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-tr… fred
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-tr… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv… Mark ZZZ Smith