?
Thanks
Roberta
From: Athanasios Douitsis [mailto:aduit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:50 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Jouni Korhonen; rad...@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org; Roberta Maglione
(robmgl); dh...@ietf.org WG; Michael Richardson
Subject: Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6
Roberta Maglione (robmgl) rob...@cisco.com 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
(i.e. have a configuration option to use the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value in
the prefix exclude option instead of an RA)
Correction, the above is incorrect, as has been rightly pointed.
Are there any cases where the Framed-IPv6-Prefix value will not be copied
as-is in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE value?
Hello (thanks for the answer),
The uplink connection between the delegating and the requesting router will
be in many cases enumerated with a prefix dictated by the
Framed-IPv6-Prefix value. If this uplink prefix is going to be a part of
the greater prefix that will be delegated, we would in
Just a general reminder. If you crosspost, make sure you also have subscribed
to the lists you CC.
- Jouni (RADEXT co-chair)
On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) v...@cisco.com wrote:
Why would it ever be copied into that option? That makes no sense to me.
- Bernie (from iPad)
; homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Hello (thanks for the answer),
The uplink connection between the delegating and the requesting router will be
in many cases enumerated with a prefix dictated by the Framed-IPv6-Prefix
value. If this uplink prefix
: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Hello (thanks for the answer),
The uplink connection between the delegating and the requesting router will be
in many cases enumerated with a prefix dictated by the Framed-IPv6-Prefix
value. If this uplink prefix is going to be a part
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) v...@cisco.com wrote:
I guess from RFC 4818, Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is used for PD. Whereas it
says:
The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to support
delegation of IPv6 prefixes to be used in the user's network, and
; Michael Richardson; dh...@ietf.org WG; homenet@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Hello Carl,
I agree with you that using DHCPv6 to number the WAN is a more common approach.
In such case you don't really need PD exclude; you just need a single IPv6
address
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) rob...@cisco.com
wrote:
Perhaps if the case is as in your example (Framed-IPv6-Prefix is
contained by Delegated-IPv6-Prefix, but not equal) then using the
Framed-IPv6-Prefix for OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE makes some sense?
Maybe it could
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.comwrote:
3GPP system uses these in the above manner i.e. Framed-IPv6-Prefix - what
you put into RA, Delegated-IPv6-Prefix - what you delegate via DHCPv6. And
in this case what was in Framed-IPv6-Prefix goes into
Hello Michael,
in DSL/Broadband environment usually the BNAS/BNG acts both as RADIUS
Client and as DHCPv6 Server. In case of an IPv6 PPP session (or a PPP dual
stack IPv4/IPv6 session) the PPP session is established using LCP that is
independent of the network layer protocol that needs to be
Thank you for the write up.
It's clear that there is a gap, which TR-187 has filled.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-187_Issue-2.pdf
RFC4241 is Informational... why didn't TR-187 come to the IETF to standardize
4241? (Will TR-187 get re-issued with the reference to
...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Thank you for the write up.
It's clear that there is a gap, which TR-187 has filled.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-187_Issue-2.pdf
RFC4241 is Informational... why didn't TR-187 come
Please see comments inline [RM].
Regards,
Roberta
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote:
Thank you for the write up.
It's clear that there is a gap, which TR-187 has filled.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-187_Issue-2.pdf
To: Roberta Maglione
Cc: dh...@ietf.org WG; homenet@ietf.org; rob...@cisco.com; rad...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
Thank you for the write up.
It's clear that there is a gap, which TR-187 has filled.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical
Wuyts Carl carl.wu...@technicolor.com wrote:
4. the statement Further, if the WAN link is numbered as a /64 from
within the prefix that (will be) delegated, that also would seem to
make the CPE's firewall even more complex, so I'd rather number it
outside the PD if it needs
Roberta Maglione robmgl.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the write up.
It's clear that there is a gap, which TR-187 has filled.
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-187_Issue-2.pdf
RFC4241 is Informational... why didn't TR-187 come to the IETF to
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Roberta Maglione robmgl.i...@gmail.comwrote:
More recently RFC 6603 about Prefix exclude was published so today you
could theoretically do that if you use prefix exclude option, but I'm not
sure how much this model has been adopted. It is referenced in
19 matches
Mail list logo
