Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

There was also the following (now expired) draft related to this topic - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-container-opt-07.

In that draft's model, the SP could push down a "bucket" of options which the "DHCPv6 hybrid server" could pull options from to provide the client. Ralph Droms originally started this document and it even went to the IESG. But it has not progressed much further and I think Reinaldo (and Ralph) lost interest as there didn't seem to be any strong push for it.

Regarding this draft, I think SPs would like not to see traffic from the devices behind the CPE router.

It does seem appropriate to me to consolidate the efforts and have them occur (mostly) in one place.


-          Bernie

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:38 AM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: [e-mail]; IPv6 Ops WG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency. Please take a look at it and comment.
Aside from these comments, the general flow of the proposed solution seems right.

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.

Given that this document is targeted at exactly the same problem that homenet is attempting to solve, I'd rather see this work be moved to homenet, where a lot more thinking has been done on this problem already, than taking it on in an operational group without necessarily considering the implications on the designs that homenet is working on.