Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Delegated prefix managed by multiple entities

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:37:17 -0500

Ted,

>Ask Chris what his attitude about this would be

I suspect we have a different understanding of the expected customer
base for a service provider DHCP-PD solution.

If a service provider customer (e.g. Nominum) has their own IT/network
person (employee or contractor) and is willing to buy their own router,
they are probably not a good prospect for a DHCP-PD solution. The
customer would configure its own router manually, and purchase TDM
circuits (T1, T3, OC3) and/or Ethernet handoffs (10M, 100M) from one or
more service providers.

For the use case for DHCP-PD and potential multi-homing, I am thinking
about customers that want highly available Internet access, but don't
employ an IT/network resource, and don't want to buy a router. Let me
suggest some possible representative examples, that you may or may not
agree with: insurance agents (e.g. Internet access to sell policies and
submit claims), small consulting companies (even if they are tech-savvy,
they can't afford in-house network folks), coffee shops and fast food
franchises (e.g. to support their customer's Internet access), and
home-based businesses.

While we are on this topic, let me also correct an earlier statement I
made, in response to a question from you:

>In today's world, most business customers would get an IPv4 subnet from
us, but some customers might bring their own IPv4 subnets. In the latter
case, we may have to reconfigure our external BGP routers to announce
the customer's subnet to the rest of the world (depending on whether we
use "white lists" or "black lists" for eBGP subnet reachability); this
extra work is part of the reason why customer-owned subnets would be
strongly discouraged (customer-owned subnets also cause route table
growth in the default-free backbone, which also isn't good). In any
case, we would reconfigure the CMTS (manually) to expect the customer
subnet to be announced by the "cable router" at the customer premise via
RIP.

Today, my company (Comcast) would NOT accept a customer-owned IPv4
subnet, because of the difficulty in configuring and supporting this
service in our network. But if it were easier to support this particular
service, we probably would. :)

I have heard reports from time to time that other cable operators have
supported this, sometimes for "special customers".

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:33 PM
To: Damien Neil
Cc: dhcwg
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Delegated prefix managed by multiple entities

On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Damien Neil wrote:
> This doesn't strike me as being different from any other use of
> reservations or fixed-address assignments in DHCP.  Why wouldn't  
> the provider want to centralize management of router address  
> configuration on their DHCP server?  And why would the user expect  
> to have any configuration access to the provider-supplied router?   
> There's a DSL modem sitting on the floor by me; I certainly don't  
> expect to be able to configure its address, regardless of whether  
> that address is statically or dynamically assigned.

Because I think a multihoming customer really wants full  
configuration control of their end of things - relying on someone  
else's DHCP service seems like a variable that you wouldn't want to  
do.  Ask Chris what his attitude about this would be - I'm just  
speculating.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg