Roberta Maglione (robmgl) <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason why I think a new radius would be required is because you need to > differentiate between the scenario where Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used to number > the Wan link with a separate prefix (not included in the PD - without the > PD_EXCLUDE) and the scenario you described where the prefix for the WAN link is > part of the PD and you need to copy it into the PD exclude option.
> Today the BNG (that in this case is acting both as RADIUS Client and
Delegating
> Router) has no mean to know if the Framed-IPv6-Prefix should be used for
the
> PD_EXCLUDE or not and in my opinion it would be better not overload the
> sematic of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix.
If the DHCPv6 server that is constructing the PD can know what how the WAN
link is numbered, then it can include the PD_EXCLUDE based upon a simple
calculation.
If one assumes the inclusion of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix in the DHCPv6 RADIUS
option added by a relay, then even if the DHCPv6 is not co-located, it could
know about the Framed-IPv6-Prefix. That might not cover all situations
however, in particular, it won't cover cases where the WAN link was not
numbered as a result of RADIUS attributes. Is a DHCP relay that isn't
talking to a radius server allowed to synthesize that attribute, or do we
need another way to do this?
Or we are just overthinking things?
Roberta, is PD_EXCLUDE widely implemented in CPEs that do 6204?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpk0srPj8Oyv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
