Message info
 
To:jouni korhonen From:Behcet Sarikaya Subject:Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps? Date:Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:46:50 -0500
 

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RADEXT is working on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-06
> which adds attributes for RFC4191 use, for example. That is then also implicitly
> available for Diameter.
>
> Assuming unicast RA would be doable using just RFC6085,

I don't understand what RFC 6085 has to do with this discussion?


> then there should not
> be much, if anything, to do protocol wise. The router that gets provisioned per
> host via AAA knows the l2-l3 mapping already.. and the AAA server also learns
> it. For dynamic changes of routes, AAA server can use e.g. l2 or l3 addresses
> for a session identification when it sends a change of authorization..
>
> The assumption here is that each host gets separately authorized when they attach
> the network, which might be an issue on some links & deployments. However, some
> network architectures with multiple routers/gateways (can) already use AAA for
> centralized address management at per host granularity.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>>> It's true, as Jari said, that this can be accomplished in other ways, and maybe it would be better if it would. If there were some better central management solution for populating unicast RA mappings on the router, then unicast RA would indeed address the exact use case that I think we care about. But without the mechanism for populating routers, we still have a poorly-addressed use case. And then the question is, do we want to develop a whole new protocol just to solve this one small problem?
>>>
>>> It might be worth developing the protocol just to put this issue to bed.
>>
>> Is RADIUS suitable for this? At one point it was the general
>> non-client provisioning protocol of choice, I thought. I have not
>> been following any of the evolving diameter work, but would a RADIUS
>> option suffice?
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif