> On Dec 6, 2015, at 15:03 , Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:20:36PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> As an alternative worth considering, it could do this with BGP instead of
>> OSPF.
>>
>> There’s nothing mythical or magical about BGP. A CPE autoconfiguring
>> itsel
On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:20:36PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> As an alternative worth considering, it could do this with BGP instead of
> OSPF.
>
> There’s nothing mythical or magical about BGP. A CPE autoconfiguring
> itself to advertise the prefix(es) it has received from upstream
> DHCPv6
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 08:45 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 6 December 2015 at 06:18, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>> Are you really suggesting that a residential ISP accept routes advertised
>>> from their customer’s CPE? Really?
>>
>> PD is used internally as well as externally, and with a little
On 6 December 2015 at 06:18, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Are you really suggesting that a residential ISP accept routes advertised
> > from their customer’s CPE? Really?
>
> PD is used internally as well as externally, and with a little bit
> of crypto to prove the assigned address belongs to them th
In message , Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> > On Nov 25, 2015, at 15:59 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message
> ,
> Brian Knight writes:
> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> DHCPv6-PD allows multiple PD requests. But did anyone actually
> implement
> >>>
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 15:59 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message
> , Brian
> Knight writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> DHCPv6-PD allows multiple PD requests. But did anyone actually implement
>>> that? I am not aware of any device that will hand
> Well the requesting router could announce the route. ISC's client
> has hooks that allow this to be done. That is, after all, how
> routing is designed to work. The DHCP server usually is sitting
> in a data center on the other side of the country with zero ability
> to inject approptiate rout
> > The DHCP relay could also have injected routes but that is a second
> > class solution.
>
> DHCP relays *are* second class solutions :) Unfortunately they cannot
> always be avoided in the semi-L2-environments like ISP access networks
> often are.
Each to his own, I guess. Some of us are usi
Mark Andrews writes:
> The DHCP server usually is sitting
> in a data center on the other side of the country with zero ability
> to inject approptiate routes.
Not too sure about that. At least, that's not what we do. We run the
DHCPv6 and DHCP servers on our BNGs (or BRAS or whatever the curr
In message <20151126053449.ga22...@eik.bme.hu>,
=?utf-8?B?SsOBS8OTIEFuZHLDoXM=?= writes:
> > Well the requesting router could announce the route. ISC's client
> > has hooks that allow this to be done. That is, after all, how
> > routing is designed to work. The DHCP server usually is sitting
>
In message
, Brian
Knight writes:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
> >
> > DHCPv6-PD allows multiple PD requests. But did anyone actually implement
> > that? I am not aware of any device that will hand out sub delegations on
> > one interface, notice that it is out of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
> DHCPv6-PD allows multiple PD requests. But did anyone actually implement
> that? I am not aware of any device that will hand out sub delegations on
> one interface, notice that it is out of address space and then go request
> more space f
Mark Andrews writes:
> This isn't rocket science. Just use your @#!Q$# brains when you build
> CPE routers.
Right... Still waiting for the first CPE built like that :)
Bjørn
On 25 November 2015 at 06:23, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > You might think that would be obvious, but exactly zero (0) commercial
> > available CPEs has implemented it like that.
> >
> > THAT means that if you expect the community to do it like this, you do in
> > fact need to write it in a RFC.
>
> O
In message
, Baldur
Norddahl writes:
> On 25 November 2015 at 02:32, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > It's a hint for the amount of space you need. What else would you
> > put in there other than that value. If you get more than you need
> > then there is no problem. If you get less than you need
On 25 November 2015 at 02:32, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's a hint for the amount of space you need. What else would you
> put in there other than that value. If you get more than you need
> then there is no problem. If you get less than you need then you
> have a problem.
>
> I've got a CPE with
In message
, Baldur Norddahl writes:
> On 25 November 2015 at 00:36, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Give PD is designed to allow you to have multiple delegation requests
> > from one router to the dhcp server (router) and manage them
> > independently. Just request prefixes as you need them. If th
On 25 November 2015 at 00:36, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Give PD is designed to allow you to have multiple delegation requests
> from one router to the dhcp server (router) and manage them
> independently. Just request prefixes as you need them. If the
> dhcp server (router) doesn't have any availab
In message <42270.1448383...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
> --==_Exmh_1448383626_2779P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:39:54 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > And a /56 gives you 256 subnets. When you remove unnecessary
> > heirac
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 13:51 , Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> On 24/11/15 22:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:27 , Miquel van Smoorenburg
>>> wrote:
>>> In article you
>>> write:
Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
and real ru
On 24/11/15 22:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:27 , Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article you write:
Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
sort of site hierarchy.
Well, it wo
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:27 , Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> In article you write:
>> Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
>> and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
>> sort of site hierarchy.
>
> Well, it works for us. Connect a
In article you write:
>Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development
>and real running code for complete implementations throughout any
>sort of site hierarchy.
Well, it works for us. Connect a second router (Fritz!box) behind
the primary one and it works. We can't see
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 11:47 AM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions
>If you have a *workable* solution for the case where
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:47:06 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> Aternatively, if you have a algorithm for hierarchical deployment that
> doesn't burn through bits as fast, we'd love to hear it..
That will teach me to reply to stuff before reading *all* my e-mail (actually,
probably not).
Hot
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:39:54 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> And a /56 gives you 256 subnets. When you remove unnecessary
> heirachical delegation / routing that still supports a reasonable
> sized home network.
If you have a *workable* solution for the case where you're handed a /56
and are running
In message <6b49ee17-6de1-4493-91c1-478f3ba44...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:27 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message <29055e3f-b923-4e21-8513-60cc8c14a...@delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong writes:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan wrote:
> >>>
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:27 , Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message <29055e3f-b923-4e21-8513-60cc8c14a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes:
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan wrote:
>>>
>>> hey,
>>>
So I'd say there is equipment out there that works, as expected, but as
>>
In message <29055e3f-b923-4e21-8513-60cc8c14a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan wrote:
> >
> > hey,
> >
> >> So I'd say there is equipment out there that works, as expected, but as
> >> seen in this thread, plenty of equipment that doesn't.
> >
> >
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan wrote:
>
> hey,
>
>> So I'd say there is equipment out there that works, as expected, but as
>> seen in this thread, plenty of equipment that doesn't.
>
> Latest OpenWrt releases include https://github.com/sbyx/odhcpd as DHCPv4/6
> server. This enable
On 22 November 2015 at 00:27, Jim Burwell wrote:
> One of the other reasons I ask is because I was experimenting with
> Comcast Business IPv6. I was sent a cable modem that could do
> dual-stack and did PD. But it seemed really broken. It would only
> assign a /64, and never routed anything it
hey,
So I'd say there is equipment out there that works, as expected, but as
seen in this thread, plenty of equipment that doesn't.
Latest OpenWrt releases include https://github.com/sbyx/odhcpd as
DHCPv4/6 server. This enables hierarchical PD on these platforms, ie.
subdelegate /64s from th
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Jim Burwell wrote:
The gist I get is that no real SOP/BCP has emerged yet for doing this,
and everyone is home-brewing their own methods.
Quite a few years back I did the following experiment:
I had a Cisco 7200 router running some kind of not-too-old-code, which had
a /
On 2015-11-21 05:08, Dave Taht wrote:
> y'all might want to look over the work of the ietf homenet working
> group for some insight into plans for dhcp-pd, and routing
> interactions, in the home and small business, at least.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/
>
> some dhcpv6 specific info is s
y'all might want to look over the work of the ietf homenet working
group for some insight into plans for dhcp-pd, and routing
interactions, in the home and small business, at least.
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/
some dhcpv6 specific info is spread around using the new hncp protocol.
blatant
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the routing of delegated
> prefixes in the ISPs routing domain? Has a standard method/best
> practice emerged yet? Routing protocols? IPv6 RAs?
>
> One obvious answer would be routing protocols.
On 21 November 2015 at 02:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I mean the router that will deliver the PD to the requesting DHCPv6 client.
>
> If the DHCPv6 server is on-net, then this will be the requesting client.
> Otherwise, it will be the last relay router.
>
>
There is no actual requirement that the re
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:35:55PM -0800, Jim Burwell wrote:
> My questions are:
>
> 1) Does the DHCPv6 protocol include any standards/mechanisms/methods for
> managing routes to prefixes it delegates, or does it consider this
> outside of its function? (I suspect the latter)
It's considered out
> On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Have a simple couple of questions here.
>>>
>>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the
On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have a simple couple of questions here.
>>
>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
>>
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Have a simple couple of questions here.
>
> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
> reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
> prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it,
Hi,
Have a simple couple of questions here.
In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
omission of this responsibility would b
42 matches
Mail list logo
