From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Aug 1 17:37:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1485311E8193; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:37:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 qiyvBH4gN8Ww; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638CD11E8106; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q720bLGU005141; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:21 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-11f1.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q720bCxB005108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:16 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Subject: LOCATION CHANGE : Routing Area Open Meeting Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:10 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01cd7046$f816d540$e8447fc0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD704F.59E26930" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1wRvAhydNOH6pRTm2rrkOOgu3Uvw== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:37:25 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD704F.59E26930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We decided we might need a larger room given the IRS discussion, so we have moved to Regency D. Signs will be posted. Cheers, Adrian From: 84all-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:84all-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wanda Lo Sent: 02 August 2012 00:45 To: 84all@ietf.org Subject: [84all] 84 Agenda Change Please note the following changes on your printed pocket agenda: August 2, 2012 Thursday 0900-1130 Morning Session I Regency D RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting - Room changed FROM Regency E TO Regency D Once again, the web agenda is always most up to date, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.txt. Thanks, Wanda =========================== Wanda Lo / Project Manager Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 48377 Fremont Blvd., Ste. 117 Fremont, California 94538 / USA T: +1.510.492.4082 F: +1.510.492.4001 www.ietf.org -- Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS) Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning www.amsl.com ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD704F.59E26930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

We decided we might need a = larger room given the IRS discussion, so we have moved to Regency = D.

 

Signs will be = posted.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: = 84all-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:84all-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Wanda Lo
Sent: 02 August 2012 00:45
To: = 84all@ietf.org
Subject: [84all] 84 Agenda = Change

 

Please note the = following changes on your printed pocket = agenda:

 

August 2, 2012 Thursday

0900-1130 Morning = Session I

Regency D  RTG    rtgarea        = ;    Routing Area Open = Meeting - Room changed FROM Regency E TO Regency = D

 

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>Once again, the web agenda is always most up to = date, https://datat= racker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.txt.

 

 

Thanks,

Wanda

<= /div>

 

 

 

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Wanda Lo / Project = Manager

Internet Engineering Task Force = (IETF)

48377 Fremont Blvd., Ste. = 117 
Fremont, California 94538 / USA T: +1.510.492.4082
F: +1.510.492.4001 
www.ietf.org

 

--

Managed by Association = Management Solutions (AMS)

Forum Management, Meeting and = Event Planning

 



 

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CD704F.59E26930-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Aug 2 12:34:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBA611E8103; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:34:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 DfJUruNmgXm5; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DD811E80D2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q72JYA9T023472; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:34:10 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-43f4.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.67.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q72JY3HS023433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:34:07 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , References: In-Reply-To: Subject: DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:34:01 +0100 Message-ID: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQDAKN99HAnewsF8LrKkT0Uzm+8mQplheMiw Content-Language: en-gb Cc: dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org, dhc-ads@toools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:34:12 -0000 Hi, At the Routing Area meeting this morning, Ted raised some potential DHCP work that routing folk should look at. Comments ideally go to the DHC working group or back to Ted. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] > Sent: 02 August 2012 20:11 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Subject: DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option > > Thanks for the time at the mic this morning. The document I wanted you to > comment on or solicit comment on is the DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option draft: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt > > There was a question at the mic about why the DHCP server wouldn't inject the > route itself, which I think is a good question, and could be argued to be the right > thing to do. However, operationally there are a lot of missing pieces to this-the > DHCP server now becomes, in addition to being a DHCP server, also a publisher of > routes, and has to have information about the routing topology of the ISP that I > think might be nontrivial to maintain. > > The advantage of the current approach, which is improved by this new draft, is > that it piggybacks on top of the existing relationship between the relay agent and > the DHCP server, which is required for DHCP to work. The DHCP server now > does not have to know the topology of the network-it sends the prefix > aggregation information to the router, which presumably already has that > information, by way of the DHCP relay, which is typically co-located in the router. > > So despite my protestations of innocence at the mic, I suppose I do really think > it's a reasonable way to solve this particular problem. From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Thu Aug 2 12:47:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1FF11E8186; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7lUL6u-fxyik; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8500B11E8183; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q72JlgBl018854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:47:43 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.190]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:47:42 -0400 From: Acee Lindem To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:47:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: Ac1w561/kXUjIXr1QZK45tR8C15Axg== Message-ID: <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-54-557441424"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:26:06 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Ted Lemon , "dhc-ads@toools.ietf.org" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:47:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail-54-557441424 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, I'm not sure what I was thinking this morning when I said that the DHCP = server should run a routing daemon and advertise the aggregate route. = Rather, the BRAS server that is maintaining subscriber DHCP state should = have a configured aggregation policy for the DHCP prefix pool route. = This problem has already been solved in commercial BRAS servers and = there is no need to add a generic route advertisement mechanism to DHCP.=20= Thanks, Acee On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 > At the Routing Area meeting this morning, Ted raised some potential = DHCP work > that routing folk should look at. Comments ideally go to the DHC = working group > or back to Ted. >=20 > Adrian >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] >> Sent: 02 August 2012 20:11 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk >> Subject: DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option >>=20 >> Thanks for the time at the mic this morning. The document I wanted = you to >> comment on or solicit comment on is the DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option = draft: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt >>=20 >> There was a question at the mic about why the DHCP server wouldn't = inject the >> route itself, which I think is a good question, and could be argued = to be the > right >> thing to do. However, operationally there are a lot of missing = pieces to > this-the >> DHCP server now becomes, in addition to being a DHCP server, also a = publisher > of >> routes, and has to have information about the routing topology of the = ISP that > I >> think might be nontrivial to maintain. >>=20 >> The advantage of the current approach, which is improved by this new = draft, is >> that it piggybacks on top of the existing relationship between the = relay agent > and >> the DHCP server, which is required for DHCP to work. The DHCP = server now >> does not have to know the topology of the network-it sends the prefix >> aggregation information to the router, which presumably already has = that >> information, by way of the DHCP relay, which is typically co-located = in the > router. >>=20 >> So despite my protestations of innocence at the mic, I suppose I do = really > think >> it's a reasonable way to solve this particular problem. >=20 --Apple-Mail-54-557441424 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIM8jCCBDQw ggMcoAMCAQICECFWwVQHDV12M/Sr0yNv0sYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJp Y3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTAeFw0xMDEwMDEyMDA0 NTlaFw0xMzEwMDEyMDA0NDhaMG8xETAPBgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMR8wHQYDVQQDDBZBY2VlIExp bmRlbSBMaW5kZW0gSUlJMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlYWxmbGluMScwJQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhhhY2VlLmxp bmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAI/Dc9ALiZuBMyuv bsc3eBxjXZpMi45Z0vzsUQZTJGTBeY7p9JsdzXC9J1uMisBxYVi39R3KJo6I4hXVp9wrA1rxh4AE bnP1+Gxfpj33uWEFYbBnVAJkIWYWF7CYTn8Zm/yd13vPXtuGA6ESeLnnJafwC9Y0YwUQ+4HX7PNv uauVAgMBAAGjggGEMIIBgDCBwAYDVR0fBIG4MIG1MIGyoIGvoIGshjdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnRydXN0 LnRlbGlhLmNvbS9Fcmljc3Nvbk5MSW5kaXZpZHVhbENBMDEuY3JshnFsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50cnVz dC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249RXJpY3Nzb24lMjBOTCUyMEluZGl2aWR1YWwlMjBDQTAxLG89RXJpY3Nz b24/Y2VydGlmaWNhdGVyZXZvY2F0aW9ubGlzdDtiaW5hcnk/YmFzZTAjBgNVHREEHDAagRhhY2Vl LmxpbmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgYqhXBrAQEwMTAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYj aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcmljc3Nvbi5jb20vbGVnYWwuc2h0bWwwHQYDVR0OBBYEFAgOzAPuplmPr7C1 BTqV94OyqUdhMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAE1gyNW6c2t/YsLxW5sm67+gVGK0Lnge4ub+k8dgGrK7Mj7em nkOIFkjdv/tqdJ/SoUy/WEkBXba2TfpZ+lfluMgLYux1vSvqBUxYBsUHeNth2Q/Y6A9sCaDTBPlK vZ2jLz814NavrVfgTCLdxX6zNtGdwzhviz+FyqyxYF43Q86RP8Gd/Npaz1W8pmYAHm0+lezuTx5k F3Av3+SaZ/MR6s+RWuXEIdED36ajeQz+OG8Mh3nplofzdrOeoWGDz53YlfRhgj+TXo+H1lclZAvD WVaMMXPdb27h9Hngsq87dkCW9uAyv8DI993rdhqzlEgUyQIL32icAXfTmTYgoGPOwjCCBEUwggMt oAMCAQICEBPJ6v/eJq2p3KTKI4GDR+MwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwRDEaMBgGA1UECgwRVGVsaWFT b25lcmEgR3JvdXAxJjAkBgNVBAMMHVRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFB1YmxpYyBSb290IENBIHYxMB4XDTA2 MTAwNjEwMDA1M1oXDTE2MTAwMjA1MDQxN1owOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMM G0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBALYQd+Q1HuuHxDyNGFlEPzCxuPPFO5W2xyr+nqCVnNJ4QYFe1HACqavqNLwUGIqIEyHv1rLn fub9LBc7dQpRHjl/dggin0ONOFJ36nbGEbfHjLJz2BzOWvwl84Sc+Fx09IrDU/SZSWFSfhqTu3TT 39h79brHdRkdPBUgBYgsiFKriHI0TjP5G8628H27BDzqUpzGLSYWgt6/tpwuOH5lcfNfHWMcCYXR lobv0Klu8lxG5amWqAnqrH6ECOyYJTRbHTsaTIZOHy9Qw/0eXPujKT7tU5xxSI2SdceJqzUbAz2o FRQ6Px7/GydpM/Rl+qYoGPcauHUL1aSeVJZqDFqcIF0CAwEAAaOCATwwggE4MBIGA1UdEwEB/wQI MAYBAf8CAQAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgcqhXAjAgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wgYkGA1UdHwSBgTB/MH2ge6B5hndsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50 cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249VGVsaWFTb25lcmElMjBQdWJsaWMlMjBSb290JTIwQ0ElMjB2MSxv PVRlbGlhU29uZXJhJTIwR3JvdXA/YXV0aG9yaXR5cmV2b2NhdGlvbmxpc3Q/YmFzZTAOBgNVHQ8B Af8EBAMCAQYwHQYDVR0OBBYEFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXb8I+4 GmKhqCMbY4g4o9vgGmLxMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQB2AEoqQz+M3Ra9alkpn/YnwhXIv6tP jhUvSuNs00Nhd0T9XhlIU3a65CaB/UKSqnayE0t7Q0Qq3r+x/GK3in/mik8i/PK2/q8HutzYFSzz 6Npztpo2JG7AEKOJPVaeebjng45m6vNC7RIfzU9sG2LBR/hewS8s6dFFn70w795xUwJBWZ67OzIK XrIVVvHTOYpbWA+MESKAXwFhnVONrOTWlVwrMUi4HbiPWpOk+xQbgehCEi7mu3cXsaU1Xq3kMXui NuC7VKoob8mFO9o9RT+dlirD2uRXwNpvCu3but6Kyhu0+nvy2iXGKjdlxlWTsdDyulXYz+OYCMZ9 lFWRzMIPMIIEbTCCA1WgAwIBAgIRAJywjASay5cieGNithuGWj0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOjEZ MBcGA1UEChMQUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IEluYzEdMBsGA1UECxMUUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IDIwNDggVjMw HhcNMDYxMDMxMjA0MjI3WhcNMTYxMTAxMTU0MjI1WjBEMRowGAYDVQQKDBFUZWxpYVNvbmVyYSBH cm91cDEmMCQGA1UEAwwdVGVsaWFTb25lcmEgUHVibGljIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDKTxADapCAq3mplX4R4gNt+WZe5QKGnaVEQSyY7lICKF5DuVdW PMLHDjzhw5IzDd860ZZx/0VrhGB3DmP4SDIWCKo2PxvY5NckdBWPWp/T2uaQdOAwgqHpN0pe1X7/ jel59WsWYXKGg/81Wth73ZK/geE7Gz9Pvj1LU6N4YhLMgooxKnCS+ZjB5icWAg+Qd1QpQhF46H1i bp6LsBWDp56MPpg8F5X6y7MGVcKYLdnLOPs84uxRW9qs1kBopzQBj6s5SyVh8A+j5liDBjghXYpw /+paGEdqHPeSFYxZKeJatmjEKLYlxcZWRKf436KvQA9jBhMEmytMNbGicR1mRH6tAgMBAAGjggFi MIIBXjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQHw1EwpKrpRa41JPr/JCwz0LGdjDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQURdvwj7gaYqGo IxtjiDij2+AaYvEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBBDCBhQYDVR0gBH4wfDA9BgkqhkiG9w0FBgEw MDAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhLmNvbTA7BgcqhXAj AgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wcAYD VR0fBGkwZzBloGOgYYZfaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yc2FzZWN1cml0eS5jb20vcHJvZHVjdHMva2Vvbi9y ZXBvc2l0b3J5L2NlcnRpZmljYXRlX3N0YXR1cy9SU0FfU2VjdXJpdHlfMjA0OF92My5DUkwwDgYD VR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAEXpos2CnIm7/872ytSrEHWZgvhOUEkUm2 5PWf/XkWko41TaL9vIS1S6AdWChNqWmnYiS7GfaIiDM9s1D6K7hidWBDOm46bNdM3ZwhMyDCfkDJ SgeJ0w+7YmjvChu7gWqDZCsbtZ5gA1ixCTdDnuZB67JGSPGW6r73coraDP8diOpiQouMvM6bKuTP BH/1poLccsUxsKgrQ23JC9LWCRb8cYHkZjXFH1K44TsIl5Lne2oT0JI3pwdA2v6jO4p/OLHntP+n pjwPbedMPUZkDYCkd3LSxj8c3JTxtA8SlPCtIHE1hh65xihg1JRIliSphrqr9kbfwHdeVxPdOI5G tDYPMYICEjCCAg4CAQEwTTA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQTAxAhAhVsFUBw1ddjP0q9Mjb9LGMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggEbMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgwMjE5NDc0MVowIwYJKoZI hvcNAQkEMRYEFKKA1rIVNr9bbG5ILOyjbQKDD7EPMFwGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFPME0wOTERMA8GA1UE CgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcN XXYz9KvTI2/SxjBeBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFPoE0wOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNV BAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcNXXYz9KvTI2/SxjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASBgF7Qp9a1iCVBcOdsG4hciLYcA9p70QC2awmHCLWGFg1907Y+seacJfujcJi1KKrn CxRFfBdZ2aGIVR4NiGR30zYSzPunRZIXOMD0KVet6kybQjIzn+Iyaw2/+2PJP20habRjnaFL0bkX 1ISHeIhGy7CYI5Bex3mpwwS7ZsgIoWYfAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-54-557441424-- From mellon@fugue.com Thu Aug 2 15:15:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B844121E80C2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:15:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.296 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 1sR8sgknZGH2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF08921E8090; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::64:f1a3:6155:c937:1c0c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:64:f1a3:6155:c937:1c0c]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A25CF23814C2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3450915-AAF5-4DB5-BA07-23E538258EF5" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:15:10 -0700 Message-Id: References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:55:09 -0700 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:15:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D3450915-AAF5-4DB5-BA07-23E538258EF5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > I'm not sure what I was thinking this morning when I said that the = DHCP server should run a routing daemon and advertise the aggregate = route. Rather, the BRAS server that is maintaining subscriber DHCP state = should have a configured aggregation policy for the DHCP prefix pool = route. This problem has already been solved in commercial BRAS servers = and there is no need to add a generic route advertisement mechanism to = DHCP.=20 Has the problem really been solved? It seems to me that the BRAS has a = limited capability to aggregate prefixes=97it can only aggregate a group = of prefixes when all of the prefixes that are members of that prefix = have been assigned. So if you have a DHCP server doing a fairly random = allocation of prefixes out of an aggregate pool to a particular BRAS, in = general the BRAS is not going to be able to advertise a route to the = larger prefix, but rather only to smaller prefixes. It may be able to = reduce the routing table somewhat by combining adjacent prefixes, but it = will never be able to advertise the actual prefix from which CPE = prefixes are being allocated, because it can't know what that prefix is = until every single prefix within it has been assigned. Furthermore, as soon as a single prefix from within that prefix expires, = the BRAS has to break apart the prefixes it is advertising. And this = has to be done carefully to avoid attracting routes that are no longer = configured on the BRAS=97it has to be done _before_ the prefix expires. = Whereas if the BRAS can be told "all your routes will be coming out of = this prefix," then it can just continually advertise the same prefix, = regardless of the comings and goings of DHCP requesting routers and the = prefixes that are assigned to them. --Apple-Mail=_D3450915-AAF5-4DB5-BA07-23E538258EF5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I'm not sure = what I was thinking this morning when I said that the DHCP server should = run a routing daemon and advertise the aggregate route. Rather, the BRAS = server that is maintaining subscriber DHCP state should have a = configured aggregation policy for the DHCP prefix pool route. This = problem has already been solved in commercial BRAS servers and there is = no need to add a generic route advertisement mechanism to DHCP. 

Has the problem really been solved?   It seems to me that = the BRAS has a limited capability to aggregate prefixes=97it can only = aggregate a group of prefixes when all of the prefixes that are members = of that prefix have been assigned.   So if you have a DHCP server = doing a fairly random allocation of prefixes out of an aggregate pool to = a particular BRAS, in general the BRAS is not going to be able to = advertise a route to the larger prefix, but rather only to smaller = prefixes.   It may be able to reduce the routing table somewhat by = combining adjacent prefixes, but it will never be able to advertise the = actual prefix from which CPE prefixes are being allocated, because it = can't know what that prefix is until every single prefix within it has = been assigned.

Furthermore, as soon as a single = prefix from within that prefix expires, the BRAS has to break apart the = prefixes it is advertising.   And this has to be done carefully to = avoid attracting routes that are no longer configured on the BRAS=97it = has to be done _before_ the prefix expires.   Whereas if the BRAS = can be told "all your routes will be coming out of this prefix," then it = can just continually advertise the same prefix, regardless of the = comings and goings of DHCP requesting routers and the prefixes that are = assigned to them.

= --Apple-Mail=_D3450915-AAF5-4DB5-BA07-23E538258EF5-- From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Fri Aug 3 10:54:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A35E21F8E15; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.542 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 1vLgw+VloHst; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB1721F8E01; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q73HsmM5000554; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:54:51 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.190]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:54:49 -0400 From: Acee Lindem To: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:54:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: Ac1xoRMtxvtylRWASmabWeAcb4ZH+w== Message-ID: References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-71-634375523"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:55:09 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:54:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail-71-634375523 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-70-634375508 --Apple-Mail-70-634375508 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server will = advertise the aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix = and the BRAS server will know better than the DHCP server as to whether = it has any subscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate route = Any concerns with sub-optimal or routing are independent of whether the = policy is in the DHCP server or BRAS router.=20 On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> I'm not sure what I was thinking this morning when I said that the = DHCP server should run a routing daemon and advertise the aggregate = route. Rather, the BRAS server that is maintaining subscriber DHCP state = should have a configured aggregation policy for the DHCP prefix pool = route. This problem has already been solved in commercial BRAS servers = and there is no need to add a generic route advertisement mechanism to = DHCP.=20 >=20 > Has the problem really been solved? It seems to me that the BRAS has = a limited capability to aggregate prefixes=97it can only aggregate a = group of prefixes when all of the prefixes that are members of that = prefix have been assigned. So if you have a DHCP server doing a fairly = random allocation of prefixes out of an aggregate pool to a particular = BRAS, in general the BRAS is not going to be able to advertise a route = to the larger prefix, but rather only to smaller prefixes. It may be = able to reduce the routing table somewhat by combining adjacent = prefixes, but it will never be able to advertise the actual prefix from = which CPE prefixes are being allocated, because it can't know what that = prefix is until every single prefix within it has been assigned. >=20 > Furthermore, as soon as a single prefix from within that prefix = expires, the BRAS has to break apart the prefixes it is advertising. = And this has to be done carefully to avoid attracting routes that are no = longer configured on the BRAS=97it has to be done _before_ the prefix = expires. Whereas if the BRAS can be told "all your routes will be = coming out of this prefix," then it can just continually advertise the = same prefix, regardless of the comings and goings of DHCP requesting = routers and the prefixes that are assigned to them. >=20 --Apple-Mail-70-634375508 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I'm = sorry but it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server will = advertise the aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix = and the BRAS server will know better than the DHCP server as to whether = it has any subscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate route =  Any concerns with sub-optimal or routing are independent of = whether the policy is in the DHCP server or BRAS = router. 
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Ted Lemon = wrote:

On Aug 2, = 2012, at 12:47 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
I'm not sure = what I was thinking this morning when I said that the DHCP server should = run a routing daemon and advertise the aggregate route. Rather, the BRAS = server that is maintaining subscriber DHCP state should have a = configured aggregation policy for the DHCP prefix pool route. This = problem has already been solved in commercial BRAS servers and there is = no need to add a generic route advertisement mechanism to DHCP. 

Has the problem really been solved?   It seems to me that = the BRAS has a limited capability to aggregate prefixes=97it can only = aggregate a group of prefixes when all of the prefixes that are members = of that prefix have been assigned.   So if you have a DHCP server = doing a fairly random allocation of prefixes out of an aggregate pool to = a particular BRAS, in general the BRAS is not going to be able to = advertise a route to the larger prefix, but rather only to smaller = prefixes.   It may be able to reduce the routing table somewhat by = combining adjacent prefixes, but it will never be able to advertise the = actual prefix from which CPE prefixes are being allocated, because it = can't know what that prefix is until every single prefix within it has = been assigned.

Furthermore, as soon as a single = prefix from within that prefix expires, the BRAS has to break apart the = prefixes it is advertising.   And this has to be done carefully to = avoid attracting routes that are no longer configured on the BRAS=97it = has to be done _before_ the prefix expires.   Whereas if the BRAS = can be told "all your routes will be coming out of this prefix," then it = can just continually advertise the same prefix, regardless of the = comings and goings of DHCP requesting routers and the prefixes that are = assigned to = them.


= --Apple-Mail-70-634375508-- --Apple-Mail-71-634375523 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIM8jCCBDQw ggMcoAMCAQICECFWwVQHDV12M/Sr0yNv0sYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJp Y3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTAeFw0xMDEwMDEyMDA0 NTlaFw0xMzEwMDEyMDA0NDhaMG8xETAPBgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMR8wHQYDVQQDDBZBY2VlIExp bmRlbSBMaW5kZW0gSUlJMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlYWxmbGluMScwJQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhhhY2VlLmxp bmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAI/Dc9ALiZuBMyuv bsc3eBxjXZpMi45Z0vzsUQZTJGTBeY7p9JsdzXC9J1uMisBxYVi39R3KJo6I4hXVp9wrA1rxh4AE bnP1+Gxfpj33uWEFYbBnVAJkIWYWF7CYTn8Zm/yd13vPXtuGA6ESeLnnJafwC9Y0YwUQ+4HX7PNv uauVAgMBAAGjggGEMIIBgDCBwAYDVR0fBIG4MIG1MIGyoIGvoIGshjdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnRydXN0 LnRlbGlhLmNvbS9Fcmljc3Nvbk5MSW5kaXZpZHVhbENBMDEuY3JshnFsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50cnVz dC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249RXJpY3Nzb24lMjBOTCUyMEluZGl2aWR1YWwlMjBDQTAxLG89RXJpY3Nz b24/Y2VydGlmaWNhdGVyZXZvY2F0aW9ubGlzdDtiaW5hcnk/YmFzZTAjBgNVHREEHDAagRhhY2Vl LmxpbmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgYqhXBrAQEwMTAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYj aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcmljc3Nvbi5jb20vbGVnYWwuc2h0bWwwHQYDVR0OBBYEFAgOzAPuplmPr7C1 BTqV94OyqUdhMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAE1gyNW6c2t/YsLxW5sm67+gVGK0Lnge4ub+k8dgGrK7Mj7em nkOIFkjdv/tqdJ/SoUy/WEkBXba2TfpZ+lfluMgLYux1vSvqBUxYBsUHeNth2Q/Y6A9sCaDTBPlK vZ2jLz814NavrVfgTCLdxX6zNtGdwzhviz+FyqyxYF43Q86RP8Gd/Npaz1W8pmYAHm0+lezuTx5k F3Av3+SaZ/MR6s+RWuXEIdED36ajeQz+OG8Mh3nplofzdrOeoWGDz53YlfRhgj+TXo+H1lclZAvD WVaMMXPdb27h9Hngsq87dkCW9uAyv8DI993rdhqzlEgUyQIL32icAXfTmTYgoGPOwjCCBEUwggMt oAMCAQICEBPJ6v/eJq2p3KTKI4GDR+MwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwRDEaMBgGA1UECgwRVGVsaWFT b25lcmEgR3JvdXAxJjAkBgNVBAMMHVRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFB1YmxpYyBSb290IENBIHYxMB4XDTA2 MTAwNjEwMDA1M1oXDTE2MTAwMjA1MDQxN1owOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMM G0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBALYQd+Q1HuuHxDyNGFlEPzCxuPPFO5W2xyr+nqCVnNJ4QYFe1HACqavqNLwUGIqIEyHv1rLn fub9LBc7dQpRHjl/dggin0ONOFJ36nbGEbfHjLJz2BzOWvwl84Sc+Fx09IrDU/SZSWFSfhqTu3TT 39h79brHdRkdPBUgBYgsiFKriHI0TjP5G8628H27BDzqUpzGLSYWgt6/tpwuOH5lcfNfHWMcCYXR lobv0Klu8lxG5amWqAnqrH6ECOyYJTRbHTsaTIZOHy9Qw/0eXPujKT7tU5xxSI2SdceJqzUbAz2o FRQ6Px7/GydpM/Rl+qYoGPcauHUL1aSeVJZqDFqcIF0CAwEAAaOCATwwggE4MBIGA1UdEwEB/wQI MAYBAf8CAQAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgcqhXAjAgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wgYkGA1UdHwSBgTB/MH2ge6B5hndsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50 cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249VGVsaWFTb25lcmElMjBQdWJsaWMlMjBSb290JTIwQ0ElMjB2MSxv PVRlbGlhU29uZXJhJTIwR3JvdXA/YXV0aG9yaXR5cmV2b2NhdGlvbmxpc3Q/YmFzZTAOBgNVHQ8B Af8EBAMCAQYwHQYDVR0OBBYEFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXb8I+4 GmKhqCMbY4g4o9vgGmLxMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQB2AEoqQz+M3Ra9alkpn/YnwhXIv6tP jhUvSuNs00Nhd0T9XhlIU3a65CaB/UKSqnayE0t7Q0Qq3r+x/GK3in/mik8i/PK2/q8HutzYFSzz 6Npztpo2JG7AEKOJPVaeebjng45m6vNC7RIfzU9sG2LBR/hewS8s6dFFn70w795xUwJBWZ67OzIK XrIVVvHTOYpbWA+MESKAXwFhnVONrOTWlVwrMUi4HbiPWpOk+xQbgehCEi7mu3cXsaU1Xq3kMXui NuC7VKoob8mFO9o9RT+dlirD2uRXwNpvCu3but6Kyhu0+nvy2iXGKjdlxlWTsdDyulXYz+OYCMZ9 lFWRzMIPMIIEbTCCA1WgAwIBAgIRAJywjASay5cieGNithuGWj0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOjEZ MBcGA1UEChMQUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IEluYzEdMBsGA1UECxMUUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IDIwNDggVjMw HhcNMDYxMDMxMjA0MjI3WhcNMTYxMTAxMTU0MjI1WjBEMRowGAYDVQQKDBFUZWxpYVNvbmVyYSBH cm91cDEmMCQGA1UEAwwdVGVsaWFTb25lcmEgUHVibGljIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDKTxADapCAq3mplX4R4gNt+WZe5QKGnaVEQSyY7lICKF5DuVdW PMLHDjzhw5IzDd860ZZx/0VrhGB3DmP4SDIWCKo2PxvY5NckdBWPWp/T2uaQdOAwgqHpN0pe1X7/ jel59WsWYXKGg/81Wth73ZK/geE7Gz9Pvj1LU6N4YhLMgooxKnCS+ZjB5icWAg+Qd1QpQhF46H1i bp6LsBWDp56MPpg8F5X6y7MGVcKYLdnLOPs84uxRW9qs1kBopzQBj6s5SyVh8A+j5liDBjghXYpw /+paGEdqHPeSFYxZKeJatmjEKLYlxcZWRKf436KvQA9jBhMEmytMNbGicR1mRH6tAgMBAAGjggFi MIIBXjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQHw1EwpKrpRa41JPr/JCwz0LGdjDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQURdvwj7gaYqGo IxtjiDij2+AaYvEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBBDCBhQYDVR0gBH4wfDA9BgkqhkiG9w0FBgEw MDAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhLmNvbTA7BgcqhXAj AgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wcAYD VR0fBGkwZzBloGOgYYZfaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yc2FzZWN1cml0eS5jb20vcHJvZHVjdHMva2Vvbi9y ZXBvc2l0b3J5L2NlcnRpZmljYXRlX3N0YXR1cy9SU0FfU2VjdXJpdHlfMjA0OF92My5DUkwwDgYD VR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAEXpos2CnIm7/872ytSrEHWZgvhOUEkUm2 5PWf/XkWko41TaL9vIS1S6AdWChNqWmnYiS7GfaIiDM9s1D6K7hidWBDOm46bNdM3ZwhMyDCfkDJ SgeJ0w+7YmjvChu7gWqDZCsbtZ5gA1ixCTdDnuZB67JGSPGW6r73coraDP8diOpiQouMvM6bKuTP BH/1poLccsUxsKgrQ23JC9LWCRb8cYHkZjXFH1K44TsIl5Lne2oT0JI3pwdA2v6jO4p/OLHntP+n pjwPbedMPUZkDYCkd3LSxj8c3JTxtA8SlPCtIHE1hh65xihg1JRIliSphrqr9kbfwHdeVxPdOI5G tDYPMYICEjCCAg4CAQEwTTA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQTAxAhAhVsFUBw1ddjP0q9Mjb9LGMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggEbMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgwMzE3MDk1NlowIwYJKoZI hvcNAQkEMRYEFBrWwcDfOKugo27pzVPBJVuSfBIxMFwGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFPME0wOTERMA8GA1UE CgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcN XXYz9KvTI2/SxjBeBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFPoE0wOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNV BAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcNXXYz9KvTI2/SxjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASBgB0BtNF97AS5zANGSdkccpznGs+iXeE8kVrcxtm8NdwAMpeIMkkP5xB1UQF5gLAu FAwkvzuu7gvLLO4XateUpJR6RzbD/U7whCsyUQorEYVkz4Mia3Q24MYX71y++XCVTX3XdFLQaMzk GVI45jtbWuAvxUST0n0S6B1d7GIA6oLpAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-71-634375523-- From mellon@fugue.com Mon Aug 6 06:28:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDEC21F869D; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 5s+975s9+Lsg; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254EE21F869C; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agape-4.lan (c-174-62-144-132.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [174.62.144.132]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E20B2380630; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3585F883-466F-409D-9CFC-35BCA82F61B9" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:27:56 -0400 Message-Id: <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:43:11 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:28:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3585F883-466F-409D-9CFC-35BCA82F61B9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server will = advertise the aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix = and the BRAS server will know better than the DHCP server as to whether = it has any subscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate route = Any concerns with sub-optimal or routing are independent of whether the = policy is in the DHCP server or BRAS router.=20 As far as I can tell, you are referring to the case where the BRAS has = been allocated a prefix, and is acting as a DHCP server. What you say = doesn't really make sense if the BRAS is not the DHCP server. The = whole point of Leaf's draft, as I understand it (perhaps Leaf can jump = in and correct me if I get it wrong) is to allow the DHCP server to be = responsible for prefix allocation, and pull that intelligence out of the = BRAS. This allows for more flexibility than is possible if each BRAS = has to be configured as a DHCP server with a fixed prefix from which to = do allocations. Also, Leaf's solution works generally for provider edge routers without = requiring the heavyweight functionality of a BRAS=97ultimately, for a = straight IPv6 routed network with no PPP tunnels, the PE router can be = _much_ simpler using prefix pool allocation than using the configuration = technique you are describing. --Apple-Mail=_3585F883-466F-409D-9CFC-35BCA82F61B9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I'm sorry but = it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server will advertise the = aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix and the BRAS = server will know better than the DHCP server as to whether it has any = subscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate route  Any = concerns with sub-optimal or routing are independent of whether the = policy is in the DHCP server or BRAS = router. 

As far as I can tell, = you are referring to the case where the BRAS has been allocated a = prefix, and is acting as a DHCP server.   What you say doesn't = really make sense if the BRAS is not the DHCP server.   The whole = point of Leaf's draft, as I understand it (perhaps Leaf can jump in and = correct me if I get it wrong) is to allow the DHCP server to be = responsible for prefix allocation, and pull that intelligence out of the = BRAS.   This allows for more flexibility than is possible if each = BRAS has to be configured as a DHCP server with a fixed prefix from = which to do allocations.

Also, Leaf's solution = works generally for provider edge routers without requiring the = heavyweight functionality of a BRAS=97ultimately, for a straight IPv6 = routed network with no PPP tunnels, the PE router can be _much_ simpler = using prefix pool allocation than using the configuration technique you = are describing.

= --Apple-Mail=_3585F883-466F-409D-9CFC-35BCA82F61B9-- From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Tue Aug 7 04:07:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB8021F85DB; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:07:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, 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 pav2TEPqFHq3; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54E121F85DA; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIP06339; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:07:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:05:29 -0700 Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:05:28 -0700 Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.103]) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.161]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:05:20 +0800 From: Leaf yeh To: Ted Lemon , Acee Lindem Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: AQHNc9dJ9dYDWKvg6U6z8H0vqwSvwpdOLNGw Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:05:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> In-Reply-To: <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.83.152] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C452A99SZXEML510MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:07:12 -0000 --_000_E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C452A99SZXEML510MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In general speaking, draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL) targets the use case when P= E router (or BNG in BBF model) acts as the relay, and the centralized DHCPv= 6 server maintains the information about the prefix delegation pools. Best Regards, Leaf From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion-bounce= s@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:28 PM To: Acee Lindem Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs; ; routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server will adverti= se the aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix and the BR= AS server will know better than the DHCP server as to whether it has any su= bscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate route Any concerns wi= th sub-optimal or routing are independent of whether the policy is in the D= HCP server or BRAS router. As far as I can tell, you are referring to the case where the BRAS has been= allocated a prefix, and is acting as a DHCP server. What you say doesn't= really make sense if the BRAS is not the DHCP server. The whole point of= Leaf's draft, as I understand it (perhaps Leaf can jump in and correct me = if I get it wrong) is to allow the DHCP server to be responsible for prefix= allocation, and pull that intelligence out of the BRAS. This allows for = more flexibility than is possible if each BRAS has to be configured as a DH= CP server with a fixed prefix from which to do allocations. Also, Leaf's solution works generally for provider edge routers without req= uiring the heavyweight functionality of a BRAS-ultimately, for a straight I= Pv6 routed network with no PPP tunnels, the PE router can be _much_ simpler= using prefix pool allocation than using the configuration technique you ar= e describing. --_000_E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C452A99SZXEML510MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In general= speaking, draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL) targets the use case when PE router (= or BNG in BBF model) acts as the relay, and the centralized DHCPv6 server maintains the information about the prefix delegation pools.=

 = ;

 = ;

Best Regards,

Leaf

 = ;

 = ;

From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-d= iscussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:28 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs; <dhc-ads@= tools.ietf.org>; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option

 

On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Ace= e Lindem wrote:

I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way at all. The BRAS server w= ill advertise the aggregate if it has any component of the aggregate prefix and the BRAS server will know better than the DHCP server as to whe= ther it has any subscribers within the range subsumed by the aggregate rout= e  Any concerns with sub-optimal or routing are independent of whether= the policy is in the DHCP server or BRAS router. 

 

As far as I can tell, you are r= eferring to the case where the BRAS has been allocated a prefix, and is act= ing as a DHCP server.   What you say doesn't really make sense if the = BRAS is not the DHCP server.   The whole point of Leaf's draft, as I understand it (perhaps Leaf can jump in and co= rrect me if I get it wrong) is to allow the DHCP server to be responsible f= or prefix allocation, and pull that intelligence out of the BRAS.   Th= is allows for more flexibility than is possible if each BRAS has to be configured as a DHCP server with a fixed p= refix from which to do allocations.

 

Also, Leaf's solution works gen= erally for provider edge routers without requiring the heavyweight function= ality of a BRAS—ultimately, for a straight IPv6 routed network with n= o PPP tunnels, the PE router can be _much_ simpler using prefix pool allocation than using the configuration techniqu= e you are describing.

 

--_000_E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA3C452A99SZXEML510MBSchi_-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Aug 9 18:26:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4884621F861D for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.445 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 uee4NBgQdfEl for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4D621F85F7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7A1Q2gq020151 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:26:02 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7A1Q1qE020136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:26:02 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Draft Routing Area Meeting minutes from Vancouver Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:26:00 +0100 Message-ID: <055101cd7697$19c9b080$4d5d1180$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac12lxaLjZRlozNYQjaEQB4pJ4Mkpg== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:26:05 -0000 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-rtgarea Thanks to Deborah. Comments welcome. Adrian From mellon@fugue.com Fri Aug 10 05:50:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526C221F84F1; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 CNIjlFHogZYr; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C5521F84EF; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.11] (173-162-214-218-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.162.214.218]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 440802380648; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:50:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C2CDBAF-3F66-4B83-8697-2B073967B166@fugue.com> References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:16:41 -0700 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:50:38 -0000 So, I haven't heard any discussion on this topic since I wrote a = clarifying message on August 6 about the intended use case for this = option. Does this mean that we've satisfactorily addressed the use = case question that Acee raised, and that no-one else objects, or does it = mean that everybody is taking a well-deserved break from IETF email = following the Vancouver meeting? From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Fri Aug 17 05:38:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A05021F8517; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 XSV-EmdpCgUH; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CAC21F847D; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q7HCdHcX008074; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:39:20 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.190]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:38:39 -0400 From: Acee Lindem To: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:38:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: Ac18dTlosVjgMFX8TvGBHSS6Kcn3QA== Message-ID: <8E54F935-4870-44DC-B048-6267A41FECEE@ericsson.com> References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> <6C2CDBAF-3F66-4B83-8697-2B073967B166@fugue.com> In-Reply-To: <6C2CDBAF-3F66-4B83-8697-2B073967B166@fugue.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-10--319786046"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:48:05 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:38:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail-10--319786046 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Ted,=20 I've been on vacation. I guess I see this as a case of the tail wagging = the dog with the BNG getting routing aggregation policy from the DHCPv6 = server. However, I'm certainly not going to let my opinion as a routing = chair and developer of a leading BNG platform hold up the will of an = entire working group. The "Security Considerations" section does need = to be beefed up as this does increase the exposure - just imagine a = subverted DHCPv6 responding with 0::/0. Thanks, Acee=20 On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > So, I haven't heard any discussion on this topic since I wrote a = clarifying message on August 6 about the intended use case for this = option. Does this mean that we've satisfactorily addressed the use = case question that Acee raised, and that no-one else objects, or does it = mean that everybody is taking a well-deserved break from IETF email = following the Vancouver meeting? >=20 --Apple-Mail-10--319786046 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIM8jCCBDQw ggMcoAMCAQICECFWwVQHDV12M/Sr0yNv0sYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJp Y3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTAeFw0xMDEwMDEyMDA0 NTlaFw0xMzEwMDEyMDA0NDhaMG8xETAPBgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMR8wHQYDVQQDDBZBY2VlIExp bmRlbSBMaW5kZW0gSUlJMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlYWxmbGluMScwJQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhhhY2VlLmxp bmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAI/Dc9ALiZuBMyuv bsc3eBxjXZpMi45Z0vzsUQZTJGTBeY7p9JsdzXC9J1uMisBxYVi39R3KJo6I4hXVp9wrA1rxh4AE bnP1+Gxfpj33uWEFYbBnVAJkIWYWF7CYTn8Zm/yd13vPXtuGA6ESeLnnJafwC9Y0YwUQ+4HX7PNv uauVAgMBAAGjggGEMIIBgDCBwAYDVR0fBIG4MIG1MIGyoIGvoIGshjdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnRydXN0 LnRlbGlhLmNvbS9Fcmljc3Nvbk5MSW5kaXZpZHVhbENBMDEuY3JshnFsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50cnVz dC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249RXJpY3Nzb24lMjBOTCUyMEluZGl2aWR1YWwlMjBDQTAxLG89RXJpY3Nz b24/Y2VydGlmaWNhdGVyZXZvY2F0aW9ubGlzdDtiaW5hcnk/YmFzZTAjBgNVHREEHDAagRhhY2Vl LmxpbmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgYqhXBrAQEwMTAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYj aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcmljc3Nvbi5jb20vbGVnYWwuc2h0bWwwHQYDVR0OBBYEFAgOzAPuplmPr7C1 BTqV94OyqUdhMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAE1gyNW6c2t/YsLxW5sm67+gVGK0Lnge4ub+k8dgGrK7Mj7em nkOIFkjdv/tqdJ/SoUy/WEkBXba2TfpZ+lfluMgLYux1vSvqBUxYBsUHeNth2Q/Y6A9sCaDTBPlK vZ2jLz814NavrVfgTCLdxX6zNtGdwzhviz+FyqyxYF43Q86RP8Gd/Npaz1W8pmYAHm0+lezuTx5k F3Av3+SaZ/MR6s+RWuXEIdED36ajeQz+OG8Mh3nplofzdrOeoWGDz53YlfRhgj+TXo+H1lclZAvD WVaMMXPdb27h9Hngsq87dkCW9uAyv8DI993rdhqzlEgUyQIL32icAXfTmTYgoGPOwjCCBEUwggMt oAMCAQICEBPJ6v/eJq2p3KTKI4GDR+MwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwRDEaMBgGA1UECgwRVGVsaWFT b25lcmEgR3JvdXAxJjAkBgNVBAMMHVRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFB1YmxpYyBSb290IENBIHYxMB4XDTA2 MTAwNjEwMDA1M1oXDTE2MTAwMjA1MDQxN1owOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMM G0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBALYQd+Q1HuuHxDyNGFlEPzCxuPPFO5W2xyr+nqCVnNJ4QYFe1HACqavqNLwUGIqIEyHv1rLn fub9LBc7dQpRHjl/dggin0ONOFJ36nbGEbfHjLJz2BzOWvwl84Sc+Fx09IrDU/SZSWFSfhqTu3TT 39h79brHdRkdPBUgBYgsiFKriHI0TjP5G8628H27BDzqUpzGLSYWgt6/tpwuOH5lcfNfHWMcCYXR lobv0Klu8lxG5amWqAnqrH6ECOyYJTRbHTsaTIZOHy9Qw/0eXPujKT7tU5xxSI2SdceJqzUbAz2o FRQ6Px7/GydpM/Rl+qYoGPcauHUL1aSeVJZqDFqcIF0CAwEAAaOCATwwggE4MBIGA1UdEwEB/wQI MAYBAf8CAQAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgcqhXAjAgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wgYkGA1UdHwSBgTB/MH2ge6B5hndsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50 cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249VGVsaWFTb25lcmElMjBQdWJsaWMlMjBSb290JTIwQ0ElMjB2MSxv PVRlbGlhU29uZXJhJTIwR3JvdXA/YXV0aG9yaXR5cmV2b2NhdGlvbmxpc3Q/YmFzZTAOBgNVHQ8B Af8EBAMCAQYwHQYDVR0OBBYEFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXb8I+4 GmKhqCMbY4g4o9vgGmLxMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQB2AEoqQz+M3Ra9alkpn/YnwhXIv6tP jhUvSuNs00Nhd0T9XhlIU3a65CaB/UKSqnayE0t7Q0Qq3r+x/GK3in/mik8i/PK2/q8HutzYFSzz 6Npztpo2JG7AEKOJPVaeebjng45m6vNC7RIfzU9sG2LBR/hewS8s6dFFn70w795xUwJBWZ67OzIK XrIVVvHTOYpbWA+MESKAXwFhnVONrOTWlVwrMUi4HbiPWpOk+xQbgehCEi7mu3cXsaU1Xq3kMXui NuC7VKoob8mFO9o9RT+dlirD2uRXwNpvCu3but6Kyhu0+nvy2iXGKjdlxlWTsdDyulXYz+OYCMZ9 lFWRzMIPMIIEbTCCA1WgAwIBAgIRAJywjASay5cieGNithuGWj0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOjEZ MBcGA1UEChMQUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IEluYzEdMBsGA1UECxMUUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IDIwNDggVjMw HhcNMDYxMDMxMjA0MjI3WhcNMTYxMTAxMTU0MjI1WjBEMRowGAYDVQQKDBFUZWxpYVNvbmVyYSBH cm91cDEmMCQGA1UEAwwdVGVsaWFTb25lcmEgUHVibGljIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDKTxADapCAq3mplX4R4gNt+WZe5QKGnaVEQSyY7lICKF5DuVdW PMLHDjzhw5IzDd860ZZx/0VrhGB3DmP4SDIWCKo2PxvY5NckdBWPWp/T2uaQdOAwgqHpN0pe1X7/ jel59WsWYXKGg/81Wth73ZK/geE7Gz9Pvj1LU6N4YhLMgooxKnCS+ZjB5icWAg+Qd1QpQhF46H1i bp6LsBWDp56MPpg8F5X6y7MGVcKYLdnLOPs84uxRW9qs1kBopzQBj6s5SyVh8A+j5liDBjghXYpw /+paGEdqHPeSFYxZKeJatmjEKLYlxcZWRKf436KvQA9jBhMEmytMNbGicR1mRH6tAgMBAAGjggFi MIIBXjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQHw1EwpKrpRa41JPr/JCwz0LGdjDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQURdvwj7gaYqGo IxtjiDij2+AaYvEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBBDCBhQYDVR0gBH4wfDA9BgkqhkiG9w0FBgEw MDAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhLmNvbTA7BgcqhXAj AgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wcAYD VR0fBGkwZzBloGOgYYZfaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yc2FzZWN1cml0eS5jb20vcHJvZHVjdHMva2Vvbi9y ZXBvc2l0b3J5L2NlcnRpZmljYXRlX3N0YXR1cy9SU0FfU2VjdXJpdHlfMjA0OF92My5DUkwwDgYD VR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAEXpos2CnIm7/872ytSrEHWZgvhOUEkUm2 5PWf/XkWko41TaL9vIS1S6AdWChNqWmnYiS7GfaIiDM9s1D6K7hidWBDOm46bNdM3ZwhMyDCfkDJ SgeJ0w+7YmjvChu7gWqDZCsbtZ5gA1ixCTdDnuZB67JGSPGW6r73coraDP8diOpiQouMvM6bKuTP BH/1poLccsUxsKgrQ23JC9LWCRb8cYHkZjXFH1K44TsIl5Lne2oT0JI3pwdA2v6jO4p/OLHntP+n pjwPbedMPUZkDYCkd3LSxj8c3JTxtA8SlPCtIHE1hh65xihg1JRIliSphrqr9kbfwHdeVxPdOI5G tDYPMYICEjCCAg4CAQEwTTA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQTAxAhAhVsFUBw1ddjP0q9Mjb9LGMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggEbMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgxNzEyMzgzOFowIwYJKoZI hvcNAQkEMRYEFKH4AHOSrEOohRng50IZyFdCuSVDMFwGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFPME0wOTERMA8GA1UE CgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcN XXYz9KvTI2/SxjBeBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFPoE0wOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNV BAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcNXXYz9KvTI2/SxjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASBgCjwiSMIV33rfsHSoprYExfLiEELsFRhRmzXWoSua5OoyKlJQoOd31Z+cw2O6XNL hTmCAvm+CNQkgwWeQAIZpEFgil7EDGSJo4pLslkKLrgjSOw+mhfy3Na18/DPR/N9s6VGHdNfaEB9 AxyKoo6U4VuSwEg8pVdaraIGpG37Ehz2AAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-10--319786046-- From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Wed Aug 22 03:49:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0399921F846F; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ARBGChuei3zc; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F117121F86C6; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJU11563; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:44:49 -0700 Received: from SZXEML440-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.75) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:44:48 -0700 Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.119]) by SZXEML440-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.75]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:44:45 +0800 From: Leaf yeh To: Acee Lindem , Ted Lemon Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: AQHNc9dJ9dYDWKvg6U6z8H0vqwSvwpdOLNGwgARS2ACACvz9gIAHsclA Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> <6C2CDBAF-3F66-4B83-8697-2B073967B166@fugue.com> <8E54F935-4870-44DC-B048-6267A41FECEE@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <8E54F935-4870-44DC-B048-6267A41FECEE@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.83.152] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:49:20 -0000 Acee - The "Security Considerations" section does need to be beefed up as = this does increase the exposure - just imagine a subverted DHCPv6 respondin= g with 0::/0. I believe draft (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL) will have the same "security considera= tions" as that for the mechanism of DHCPv6-PD (OPTION_IA_PD), when BNG acts= as the DHCPv6 relay for DHCPv6-PD. DHCPv6-PD (OPTION_IA_PD) does also have the exposure on the routing for the= customer network. While OPTION_PREFIX_POOL sets up the aggregation route, = OPTION_IA_PD also request to set up route for the customer network on the P= E router. If the subverted PD prefix is ::/0, then the PE router will face the same p= roblem, right? I suppose the DHCPv6 server, acting as the role of network administrator, n= eeds to prevent this case happen. Best Regards, Leaf -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 8:39 PM To: Ted Lemon Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.or= g Chairs; ; Leaf yeh Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Hi Ted,=20 I've been on vacation. I guess I see this as a case of the tail wagging the= dog with the BNG getting routing aggregation policy from the DHCPv6 server= . However, I'm certainly not going to let my opinion as a routing chair and= developer of a leading BNG platform hold up the will of an entire working = group. The "Security Considerations" section does need to be beefed up as = this does increase the exposure - just imagine a subverted DHCPv6 respondin= g with 0::/0. Thanks, Acee=20 On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > So, I haven't heard any discussion on this topic since I wrote a clarifyi= ng message on August 6 about the intended use case for this option. Does = this mean that we've satisfactorily addressed the use case question that Ac= ee raised, and that no-one else objects, or does it mean that everybody is = taking a well-deserved break from IETF email following the Vancouver meetin= g? >=20 From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Aug 22 12:49:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DEE21F86B0; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:49:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.558, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 dSX-vzCUi-Sl; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED8D21F85BB; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q7MJoAdH011063; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:50:14 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.166]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:48:54 -0400 From: Acee Lindem Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:48:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option Thread-Index: Ac2AnykG3UMO6SGMQGOe63/SawbdcA== Message-ID: <4F7049DC-C8ED-40F9-8ECD-DF030B8DFF31@ericsson.com> References: <019101cd70e5$c949c890$5bdd59b0$@olddog.co.uk> <3C8E8056-D034-453E-98F6-A028DE304286@ericsson.com> <3E00A188-D7F9-44AD-A9A7-DF49BE6484AF@fugue.com> <6C2CDBAF-3F66-4B83-8697-2B073967B166@fugue.com> <8E54F935-4870-44DC-B048-6267A41FECEE@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <8E54F935-4870-44DC-B048-6267A41FECEE@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-16-138028279"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:24:20 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , Ted Lemon , "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" , "" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:49:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail-16-138028279 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Leaf, On Aug 17, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi Ted,=20 > I've been on vacation. I guess I see this as a case of the tail = wagging the dog with the BNG getting routing aggregation policy from the = DHCPv6 server. However, I'm certainly not going to let my opinion as a = routing chair and developer of a leading BNG platform hold up the will = of an entire working group. The "Security Considerations" section does = need to be beefed up as this does increase the exposure - just imagine a = subverted DHCPv6 responding with 0::/0. There is discussion of this case in RFC 3633 "Security Considerations". = However, I'd now expect the mechanisms to authenticate the DHCP = exchanges to be more mature. Also, the threats of readvertisement need = to be discussed better than in RFC 3633.=20 Thanks, Acee=20 > Thanks, > Acee=20 > On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >=20 >> So, I haven't heard any discussion on this topic since I wrote a = clarifying message on August 6 about the intended use case for this = option. Does this mean that we've satisfactorily addressed the use = case question that Acee raised, and that no-one else objects, or does it = mean that everybody is taking a well-deserved break from IETF email = following the Vancouver meeting? >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-16-138028279 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIM8jCCBDQw ggMcoAMCAQICECFWwVQHDV12M/Sr0yNv0sYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJp Y3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTAeFw0xMDEwMDEyMDA0 NTlaFw0xMzEwMDEyMDA0NDhaMG8xETAPBgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMR8wHQYDVQQDDBZBY2VlIExp bmRlbSBMaW5kZW0gSUlJMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlYWxmbGluMScwJQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhhhY2VlLmxp bmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAI/Dc9ALiZuBMyuv bsc3eBxjXZpMi45Z0vzsUQZTJGTBeY7p9JsdzXC9J1uMisBxYVi39R3KJo6I4hXVp9wrA1rxh4AE bnP1+Gxfpj33uWEFYbBnVAJkIWYWF7CYTn8Zm/yd13vPXtuGA6ESeLnnJafwC9Y0YwUQ+4HX7PNv uauVAgMBAAGjggGEMIIBgDCBwAYDVR0fBIG4MIG1MIGyoIGvoIGshjdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnRydXN0 LnRlbGlhLmNvbS9Fcmljc3Nvbk5MSW5kaXZpZHVhbENBMDEuY3JshnFsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50cnVz dC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249RXJpY3Nzb24lMjBOTCUyMEluZGl2aWR1YWwlMjBDQTAxLG89RXJpY3Nz b24/Y2VydGlmaWNhdGVyZXZvY2F0aW9ubGlzdDtiaW5hcnk/YmFzZTAjBgNVHREEHDAagRhhY2Vl LmxpbmRlbUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgYqhXBrAQEwMTAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYj aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcmljc3Nvbi5jb20vbGVnYWwuc2h0bWwwHQYDVR0OBBYEFAgOzAPuplmPr7C1 BTqV94OyqUdhMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF oDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAE1gyNW6c2t/YsLxW5sm67+gVGK0Lnge4ub+k8dgGrK7Mj7em nkOIFkjdv/tqdJ/SoUy/WEkBXba2TfpZ+lfluMgLYux1vSvqBUxYBsUHeNth2Q/Y6A9sCaDTBPlK vZ2jLz814NavrVfgTCLdxX6zNtGdwzhviz+FyqyxYF43Q86RP8Gd/Npaz1W8pmYAHm0+lezuTx5k F3Av3+SaZ/MR6s+RWuXEIdED36ajeQz+OG8Mh3nplofzdrOeoWGDz53YlfRhgj+TXo+H1lclZAvD WVaMMXPdb27h9Hngsq87dkCW9uAyv8DI993rdhqzlEgUyQIL32icAXfTmTYgoGPOwjCCBEUwggMt oAMCAQICEBPJ6v/eJq2p3KTKI4GDR+MwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwRDEaMBgGA1UECgwRVGVsaWFT b25lcmEgR3JvdXAxJjAkBgNVBAMMHVRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFB1YmxpYyBSb290IENBIHYxMB4XDTA2 MTAwNjEwMDA1M1oXDTE2MTAwMjA1MDQxN1owOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMM G0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBALYQd+Q1HuuHxDyNGFlEPzCxuPPFO5W2xyr+nqCVnNJ4QYFe1HACqavqNLwUGIqIEyHv1rLn fub9LBc7dQpRHjl/dggin0ONOFJ36nbGEbfHjLJz2BzOWvwl84Sc+Fx09IrDU/SZSWFSfhqTu3TT 39h79brHdRkdPBUgBYgsiFKriHI0TjP5G8628H27BDzqUpzGLSYWgt6/tpwuOH5lcfNfHWMcCYXR lobv0Klu8lxG5amWqAnqrH6ECOyYJTRbHTsaTIZOHy9Qw/0eXPujKT7tU5xxSI2SdceJqzUbAz2o FRQ6Px7/GydpM/Rl+qYoGPcauHUL1aSeVJZqDFqcIF0CAwEAAaOCATwwggE4MBIGA1UdEwEB/wQI MAYBAf8CAQAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgcqhXAjAgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wgYkGA1UdHwSBgTB/MH2ge6B5hndsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50 cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vY249VGVsaWFTb25lcmElMjBQdWJsaWMlMjBSb290JTIwQ0ElMjB2MSxv PVRlbGlhU29uZXJhJTIwR3JvdXA/YXV0aG9yaXR5cmV2b2NhdGlvbmxpc3Q/YmFzZTAOBgNVHQ8B Af8EBAMCAQYwHQYDVR0OBBYEFJYnw7jepV9dRD45UuVFsXZfYzCbMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXb8I+4 GmKhqCMbY4g4o9vgGmLxMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQB2AEoqQz+M3Ra9alkpn/YnwhXIv6tP jhUvSuNs00Nhd0T9XhlIU3a65CaB/UKSqnayE0t7Q0Qq3r+x/GK3in/mik8i/PK2/q8HutzYFSzz 6Npztpo2JG7AEKOJPVaeebjng45m6vNC7RIfzU9sG2LBR/hewS8s6dFFn70w795xUwJBWZ67OzIK XrIVVvHTOYpbWA+MESKAXwFhnVONrOTWlVwrMUi4HbiPWpOk+xQbgehCEi7mu3cXsaU1Xq3kMXui NuC7VKoob8mFO9o9RT+dlirD2uRXwNpvCu3but6Kyhu0+nvy2iXGKjdlxlWTsdDyulXYz+OYCMZ9 lFWRzMIPMIIEbTCCA1WgAwIBAgIRAJywjASay5cieGNithuGWj0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwOjEZ MBcGA1UEChMQUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IEluYzEdMBsGA1UECxMUUlNBIFNlY3VyaXR5IDIwNDggVjMw HhcNMDYxMDMxMjA0MjI3WhcNMTYxMTAxMTU0MjI1WjBEMRowGAYDVQQKDBFUZWxpYVNvbmVyYSBH cm91cDEmMCQGA1UEAwwdVGVsaWFTb25lcmEgUHVibGljIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDKTxADapCAq3mplX4R4gNt+WZe5QKGnaVEQSyY7lICKF5DuVdW PMLHDjzhw5IzDd860ZZx/0VrhGB3DmP4SDIWCKo2PxvY5NckdBWPWp/T2uaQdOAwgqHpN0pe1X7/ jel59WsWYXKGg/81Wth73ZK/geE7Gz9Pvj1LU6N4YhLMgooxKnCS+ZjB5icWAg+Qd1QpQhF46H1i bp6LsBWDp56MPpg8F5X6y7MGVcKYLdnLOPs84uxRW9qs1kBopzQBj6s5SyVh8A+j5liDBjghXYpw /+paGEdqHPeSFYxZKeJatmjEKLYlxcZWRKf436KvQA9jBhMEmytMNbGicR1mRH6tAgMBAAGjggFi MIIBXjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQHw1EwpKrpRa41JPr/JCwz0LGdjDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQURdvwj7gaYqGo IxtjiDij2+AaYvEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBBDCBhQYDVR0gBH4wfDA9BgkqhkiG9w0FBgEw MDAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhLmNvbTA7BgcqhXAj AgEBMDAwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0dHBzOi8vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20wcAYD VR0fBGkwZzBloGOgYYZfaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yc2FzZWN1cml0eS5jb20vcHJvZHVjdHMva2Vvbi9y ZXBvc2l0b3J5L2NlcnRpZmljYXRlX3N0YXR1cy9SU0FfU2VjdXJpdHlfMjA0OF92My5DUkwwDgYD VR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAEXpos2CnIm7/872ytSrEHWZgvhOUEkUm2 5PWf/XkWko41TaL9vIS1S6AdWChNqWmnYiS7GfaIiDM9s1D6K7hidWBDOm46bNdM3ZwhMyDCfkDJ SgeJ0w+7YmjvChu7gWqDZCsbtZ5gA1ixCTdDnuZB67JGSPGW6r73coraDP8diOpiQouMvM6bKuTP BH/1poLccsUxsKgrQ23JC9LWCRb8cYHkZjXFH1K44TsIl5Lne2oT0JI3pwdA2v6jO4p/OLHntP+n pjwPbedMPUZkDYCkd3LSxj8c3JTxtA8SlPCtIHE1hh65xihg1JRIliSphrqr9kbfwHdeVxPdOI5G tDYPMYICEjCCAg4CAQEwTTA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQTAxAhAhVsFUBw1ddjP0q9Mjb9LGMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggEbMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgyMjE5NDg1MlowIwYJKoZI hvcNAQkEMRYEFFpm4gqTqvnSDaHw1kJIyZu7sD27MFwGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFPME0wOTERMA8GA1UE CgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNVBAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcN XXYz9KvTI2/SxjBeBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFPoE0wOTERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJDAiBgNV BAMMG0VyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0EwMQIQIVbBVAcNXXYz9KvTI2/SxjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASBgI7AZ8GDUIVMukqR1yHazAysMmlbxUrNtjelaooe8aDR6NU8eT9TLLCxm8K1ClQk lZnudl3pYyuIeHMBN/Nmmze9lAuLi+eBaMiupodQhniLgtV0RqQJBQqP47XhPMvNv2Imb6fA0YBf WHufSQFOyBOKtVP8fHtN0CJWXpRrGDbcAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-16-138028279-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Aug 24 02:04:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF1421F86CB; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:04:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, 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 0q3gC4GFJ9Fp; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E399B21F866C; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7O94pN5010909; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:04:51 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7O94nuW010888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:04:50 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Subject: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:04:47 +0100 Message-ID: <186a01cd81d7$839f7670$8ade6350$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2B13/fLFzVOdqSRn+k/80uq+PR0Q== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:04:53 -0000 Hi, The old mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" via rtg-rdd@ietf.org at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd has an archive that shows just two (automated) messages from 2008. I propose to close this list and remove all record of it. Objections? Thanks, Adrian From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Aug 26 04:52:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB2021F84AF for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 Tf7hKXQiQK1B for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7B621F845A for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14so3962469vcb.31 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YMkuOCTssc6T+A+GQ4omV7ROIk5L9KBn6r7/aHHve34=; b=OWHejW896daNqYCXWqyj3hfvNzHCrmCTjmv1RO1oxrUJ3NS9ULGtDwYnWRQjrQDDPG GE40gaYTDFvRdrUHIqPAOK8RrkBbtSJQii9yawmoIo5u62IdVmvF645BPl48WzGg3K1b 6cKUcs5VwMA3dUV8wj66yhuwywEvGEvsQfGlDhNc7ynEKKO4ED17pBK2PvVIocMiSx87 fOSpZemBK8Ucsks9k1t4VAcBFMp9L7K0TQ9VsbRk43Y2FzcEE4ILT4n3AZK9Edg8CFLw +O2/pT8SnUD8Lc0MnATFZRGuePWdH+g3plKxpFX4BbfdFvYuNkR3XQMOvwp//QPq0dsh ignA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.37.194 with SMTP id y2mr8047915vcd.44.1345981950178; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.55.9 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:52:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" From: Abdussalam Baryun To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:52:31 -0000 +1 I really don't know the reason/purpose of the open (discuss objectives), which I recommend always mentioned when any mailing list opens, AB > > Hi, > > The old mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" via > rtg-rdd at ietf.org at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd > has an archive > that shows just two (automated) messages from 2008. > > I propose to close this list and remove all record of it. > > Objections? > > Thanks, > Adrian > From dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Aug 26 05:06:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A04D21F8522 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 LdfhSxku5zTN for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3032121F851E for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q7QC6FLj011421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:06:15 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:06:15 +0200 From: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" To: Abdussalam Baryun , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:06:14 +0200 Subject: RE: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" Thread-Topic: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" Thread-Index: Ac2DgUmtBi5z9OiFTCSY/HGNUwa43QAADFGg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:06:20 -0000 >From 2003 discussions in Vienna on BGP Protocol overload and follow-up acti= vities on generic data distribution among IP routers (see below). Basically= , the ancestor of some of topics discussed in 2012. ---- Design team: Router Data Distribution To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Design team: Router Data Distribution From: Alex Zinin Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:15:59 -0700 List-archive: List-help: List-id: Routing Area General mailing list List-post: List-subscribe: = , List-unsubscribe: , Reply-to: Alex Zinin Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Design team: Router Data Distribution Mission Statement: The design team will document functional requirements and design considerations for a protocol for distribution of generic data among IP routers within and between different Autonomous Systems and Service Provider networks. Applications described in the following drafts will be considered as examples of data that would need to be distributed: draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-00.txt draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt DT Lead: David Meyer Membership: Open subscription To subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd Archives: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rtg-rdd/curre= nt/maillist.html Milestones: SEP 2003: Submit the -00 version of the document for discussion within the DT OCT 2003: Submit the -01 version of the document for discussion on the RTG area mailing list =20 --=20 Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 > Abdussalam Baryun > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 13:53 > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG=20 > Area: Router Data Distribution DT" >=20 > +1 >=20 > I really don't know the reason/purpose of the open (discuss > objectives), which I recommend always mentioned when any mailing list > opens, >=20 > AB > > > > Hi, > > > > The old mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data=20 > Distribution DT" via > > rtg-rdd at ietf.org at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd > > has an archive > > that shows just two (automated) messages from 2008. > > > > I propose to close this list and remove all record of it. > > > > Objections? > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > = From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Aug 26 05:23:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AE421F845A; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 dKEHhuc47dGq; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B5C21F84B2; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14so3976354vcb.31 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bf73hqyheSSBfPDqlxQvV0wDqqKxZhV4uhe8xjkwxt0=; b=wJMfx8A4ogscl66QqrTQShRc8hY+ckGNifktrU/3/bytugJ4PJE31ZIF1S354YgPPE ql01IGxAFmAZaNsrblVrkfWHPkVhCCQucwVcN7hXKFgf04Dp2K9SGesiFiLpeFz7wTy/ 2TZmLvu2ACdSaiTVpM/kBQALzNHjswCOl7zRk8sjEN2R0/JiLlbi5yTK8GfCwca/erNy MV+fnbNQaHP0Bseu+IO/sRWzRMBTt4KaOlmG5amW7Ms38ByKOZTM9DZjjr1Zl3uBgR+I nR2etbtJoEyF8dfafO5cBLKZ0wVXE2atwQUpMGeGDzg8z3OkAy+/itTxwoUIcKrLUakY akog== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.58.174 with SMTP id s14mr9772824veq.51.1345983793702; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.55.9 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:23:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:23:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data Distribution DT" From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: rtg-rdd@ietf.org, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:23:15 -0000 Hi Dimitri, I thank you for your help, so I CC the purpose below to the list rtg-rdd that was proposed to be close, Regards AB +++ On 8/26/12, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) wrote: > From 2003 discussions in Vienna on BGP Protocol overload and follow-up > activities on generic data distribution among IP routers (see below). > Basically, the ancestor of some of topics discussed in 2012. > > ---- > Design team: Router Data Distribution > > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Design team: Router Data Distribution > From: Alex Zinin > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:15:59 -0700 > List-archive: > > List-help: > List-id: Routing Area General mailing list > List-post: > List-subscribe: > , > List-unsubscribe: > , > Reply-to: Alex Zinin > Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org > Design team: Router Data Distribution > > Mission Statement: > > The design team will document functional requirements and design > considerations for a protocol for distribution of generic data among > IP routers within and between different Autonomous Systems and > Service Provider networks. Applications described in the following > drafts will be considered as examples of data that would need to be > distributed: > > draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-00.txt > draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt > > DT Lead: > David Meyer > > Membership: > Open subscription > To subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd > Archives: > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rtg-rdd/current/maillist.html > > Milestones: > > SEP 2003: Submit the -00 version of the document for discussion > within the DT > > OCT 2003: Submit the -01 version of the document for discussion > on the RTG area mailing list > > -- > Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Abdussalam Baryun >> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 13:53 >> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Propose to close mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG >> Area: Router Data Distribution DT" >> >> +1 >> >> I really don't know the reason/purpose of the open (discuss >> objectives), which I recommend always mentioned when any mailing list >> opens, >> >> AB >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > The old mailing list "Rtg-rdd -- RTG Area: Router Data >> Distribution DT" via >> > rtg-rdd at ietf.org at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-rdd >> > has an archive >> > that shows just two (automated) messages from 2008. >> > >> > I propose to close this list and remove all record of it. >> > >> > Objections? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Adrian >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Aug 26 05:42:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3534621F8497; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 lDw+U-HlpMH1; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476E021F8491; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so3915820vbb.31 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mppgc9FjmnT92Gq27lQKNKTpqxiBxlaqmwKMrlCivaI=; b=qUy7k0x8tQNr3fd4T2R2/HMyI9D29hYKUY/7ol0Lw6HoTL8gZGaZoCiF5GakZ7MExg eLfqab08U2DYQkUU4wlQ+jessEZUeefVraHTeZgo0utdnsuka98/s8TipdDXCJM8wF6d 4pjYBQu9VU4g4b6pXJ3DknIZmOGgV8StBBluQ4S/j5UON60PfyvAsenMOXdJ6WfPeNE8 MAB7Bl8mONIGCjB6YWHFQ2Vk/w8XxsuYCTK2pKf94vyAWd8TVo7NAbrFvUki17UYv0ja B+gV4bYfDOUfnU5ID7V6RdBl8h6Fd/CGTrO+e5FiDk/5/J+Z31CBeNs5VGqjw7Hlv381 3jrQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.32.233 with SMTP id m9mr10075512vei.23.1345984933668; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.55.9 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:42:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:42:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussion of "Interface to the Routing System" in Vancouver From: Abdussalam Baryun To: akatlas@juniper.net, tnadeau@juniper.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:42:15 -0000 Hi Alia and Dave, Reading through to find the definition of IRS within it still is not clear for me, not sure its relationship with the network interfaces, please advise, Regards AB === > Hi, > > We have a slot on the agenda of the Routing Area Open Meeting to discuss a > proposal for new work on an "Interface to the Routing System". We want to > spend > a little time looking at the proposal to see whether it has legs and to > gauge > the interest. In summary, the idea is to standardise a programmatic > interface > for full-duplex, streaming state transfer in and out of the Internet's > routing > system. > > You can read an I-D on the subject at > http://lucidvision.com/draft-ward-irs-framework-00.txt (this will be posted > on > Monday when the gates re-open) and there will be slides to guide the > dicussion. > > I will also be opening a non-WG mailing list to give a place to discuss > this > topic. > > Adrian > From tnadeau@juniper.net Mon Aug 27 10:24:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1804F21F856D; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 lAtXYhQHY7tc; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2228D21F8440; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUDutMat7CESHYWqDfRVXMAYXMVG5hcM8@postini.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:24:08 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:21:53 -0700 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:21:52 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:21:38 -0400 From: Thomas Nadeau To: Abdussalam Baryun , Alia Atlas Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:21:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Discussion of "Interface to the Routing System" in Vancouver Thread-Topic: Discussion of "Interface to the Routing System" in Vancouver Thread-Index: Ac2EeGreR0hDfmg+S/CqpeyxrMbomg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:52:30 -0700 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:24:09 -0000 >Hi Alia and Dave, > >Reading through to find the definition of IRS within > it still is not clear for me, not sure >its relationship with the network interfaces, please advise, I am not sure what your question exactly is. Network interfaces are used by the routing system for route computation and ultimately used as forwarding entities once routes are computed. In IRS they are treated the same way they are treated today. --Tom > >Regards >AB >=3D=3D=3D >> Hi, >> >> We have a slot on the agenda of the Routing Area Open Meeting to >>discuss a >> proposal for new work on an "Interface to the Routing System". We want >>to >> spend >> a little time looking at the proposal to see whether it has legs and to >> gauge >> the interest. In summary, the idea is to standardise a programmatic >> interface >> for full-duplex, streaming state transfer in and out of the Internet's >> routing >> system. >> >> You can read an I-D on the subject at >> http://lucidvision.com/draft-ward-irs-framework-00.txt (this will be >>posted >> on >> Monday when the gates re-open) and there will be slides to guide the >> dicussion. >> >> I will also be opening a non-WG mailing list to give a place to discuss >> this >> topic. >> >> Adrian >>