Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 - Respond by April 8, 2013

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:25:35 +0000

Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02> feel it's ready for a WGLC.  There's been discussion and comment already, but more eyes on this work are definitely needed to advance it.

At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.

Please review the draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published.  We have been getting very anemic responses to working group messages recently.   Your response matters, so please do respond.

Tomek and I will evaluate consensus after April 8, 2013.

Thanks!

-          Bernie

---

From: "Leaf Yeh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:50:53 +0800

Hi folks,

Pls. feel free to review & comment on this draft. The authors will
appreciate those efforts to make it better.

Best Regards,

Leaf

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 - Respond
by April 8, 2013

Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02>  feel
it's ready for a WGLC.  There's been discussion and comment already, but
more eyes on this work are definitely needed to advance it.

Please review the draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to
be published.  We have been getting very anemic responses to working group
messages recently.   Your response matters, so please do respond.

Thanks!

-          Bernie

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:52:17 +0800

Hello Authors,

I finish my first read to the current draft. Some preliminary comments
are just for your considerations.

1) If I understood correctly, the draft is targeted to resolve two issues
   a) enable automatic routing advertisement linking to prefix pool
   b) enhance routing aggregation on PE routers

I guess it's worth to try making Introduction Section more
tight/focused on those two issues

It would also be good to state some considerations how could the draft
help to aggregate the routing on PE routers.

2) Section 3 lists two cases. I guess you may want to add some texts
to describe the differences, especially there is a plenty of
configuration data.

BRs

Gang

---

From: "Leaf Yeh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:14:46 +0800

Hi Gang,

Thanks for your kind review.

<Gang> the draft is targeted to resolve two issues
   a) enable automatic routing advertisement linking to prefix pool
   b) enhance routing aggregation on PE routers
I guess it's worth to try making Introduction Section more tight/focused on
those two issues
</Gang>

You're right about the draft's purpose, but the proposed OPTION_PREFIX_POOL
(& the DHCPv6 mechanism) is only designed to provide PE the information (&
status) about the pools. PE (and the routing protocol on it) will take the
responsibility (or build the functionality) to do the proper routing
aggregation & automatic advertisement. Right?

<Gang>2) Section 3 lists two cases. I guess you may want to add some texts
to describe the differences, especially there is a plenty of configuration
data. </Gang>

Same reasons as the above. The draft only touches the DHCPv6 part of the
mechanism. It implies that PE could do the proper routing aggregation &
automatic advertisement after (or if) it gets the information about the
pools. (Yes, in section 1. Is text there enough or you want something new?)

The difference between 2 use cases in section 3 are in the titles of the
Fig.1 & Fig.2, In Fig.1, the PE employs the pool for itself (or the whole
device), while in Fig.2, the PE employs the pool for its specified interface
. But I suppose the configuration associated with each prefix pool on the PE
router is the same.

Best Regards,
Leaf

-----Original Message-----
From: GangChen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:52 PM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 -
Respond by April 8, 2013

Hello Authors,

I finish my first read to the current draft. Some preliminary comments are
just for your considerations.

I guess it's worth to try making Introduction Section more tight/focused on
those two issues

It would also be good to state some considerations how could the draft help
to aggregate the routing on PE routers.

2) Section 3 lists two cases. I guess you may want to add some texts to
describe the differences, especially there is a plenty of configuration
data.

BRs

Gang

2013/3/26, Leaf Yeh <[email-masked]>:
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02 - 
> Respond by April 8, 2013
>
>
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-02>  
> feel it's ready for a WGLC.  There's been discussion and comment 
> already, but more eyes on this work are definitely needed to advance it.
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is 
> ready to be published.  We have been getting very anemic responses to
working group