'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Templin (US), Fred L
Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

Thanks - Fred

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Suresh Krishnan-2
Hi Fred,

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]> wrote:

Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

There are a couple of references to DHCPv6 in the draft. I do not see any limitation to the use of IA_PD.

There is a recommendation against a IA_NA *only* network that is a straight reference to RFC7934 and nothing additional

"an IA_NA-only network is not recommended per RFC7934 [RFC7934] section 8"


"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address”

Is there some specific text you are concerned about?

Thanks
Suresh


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Templin (US), Fred L

Hi Suresh,

 

My intent on posting was to make the dhc community aware that there is a

BCP document in the publication queue that makes statements about DHCPv6.

My point about IA_PD concerns the following draft text:

 

   o  M-flag = 0 (UE/subscriber address is not managed through DHCPv6),

      this flag may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix

      delegation support is desired)

 

I find the text “may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix delegation

support is desired” to sound as if it is casting doubts on whether that future will

ever arrive. Can this WG live with text of this nature going forward in a BCP?

 

I do not have any specific comments on IA_NA; my area of interest is IA_PD.

But, others in this community may want to have a look.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 6:05 AM
To: Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred,

 

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

 

There are a couple of references to DHCPv6 in the draft. I do not see any limitation to the use of IA_PD.

 

There is a recommendation against a IA_NA *only* network that is a straight reference to RFC7934 and nothing additional

 

"an IA_NA-only network is not recommended per RFC7934 [RFC7934] section 8"

 

 

"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address”

 

Is there some specific text you are concerned about?

 

Thanks

Suresh

 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Bernie Volz (volz)

Hi Fred:

 

My personal view is …

 

While many of us would have liked to see DHCPv6 PD used in this situation, I think this work is a nice practical solution without requiring new functionality in hosts. It is a deployment document (hence why it is in v6ops) – anyone can do this without requiring anything from the hosts that they don’t already support. That isn’t the case with DHCPv6 PD (most hosts don’t support this).

 

-          Bernie

 

From: dhcwg [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:45 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Suresh,

 

My intent on posting was to make the dhc community aware that there is a

BCP document in the publication queue that makes statements about DHCPv6.

My point about IA_PD concerns the following draft text:

 

   o  M-flag = 0 (UE/subscriber address is not managed through DHCPv6),

      this flag may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix

      delegation support is desired)

 

I find the text “may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix delegation

support is desired” to sound as if it is casting doubts on whether that future will

ever arrive. Can this WG live with text of this nature going forward in a BCP?

 

I do not have any specific comments on IA_NA; my area of interest is IA_PD.

But, others in this community may want to have a look.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Suresh Krishnan [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 6:05 AM
To: Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred,

 

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

 

There are a couple of references to DHCPv6 in the draft. I do not see any limitation to the use of IA_PD.

 

There is a recommendation against a IA_NA *only* network that is a straight reference to RFC7934 and nothing additional

 

"an IA_NA-only network is not recommended per RFC7934 [RFC7934] section 8"

 

 

"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address”

 

Is there some specific text you are concerned about?

 

Thanks

Suresh

 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Templin (US), Fred L

Hi Bernie,

 

I am not opposing this draft going forward, but it is not the same thing as prefix

delegation. The document is about a router advertising a unique prefix per host,

whereas true prefix delegation is from a delegating router to a requesting router.

This is true even if the “requesting router” is an end system, as in:

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost/

 

I think both of these mechanisms will have their respective use cases. Please

have a look at the above document and share your thoughts here.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 12:57 PM
To: Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]>; Suresh Krishnan <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred:

 

My personal view is …

 

While many of us would have liked to see DHCPv6 PD used in this situation, I think this work is a nice practical solution without requiring new functionality in hosts. It is a deployment document (hence why it is in v6ops) – anyone can do this without requiring anything from the hosts that they don’t already support. That isn’t the case with DHCPv6 PD (most hosts don’t support this).

 

-          Bernie

 

From: dhcwg [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:45 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan <
[hidden email]>
Cc:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Suresh,

 

My intent on posting was to make the dhc community aware that there is a

BCP document in the publication queue that makes statements about DHCPv6.

My point about IA_PD concerns the following draft text:

 

   o  M-flag = 0 (UE/subscriber address is not managed through DHCPv6),

      this flag may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix

      delegation support is desired)

 

I find the text “may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix delegation

support is desired” to sound as if it is casting doubts on whether that future will

ever arrive. Can this WG live with text of this nature going forward in a BCP?

 

I do not have any specific comments on IA_NA; my area of interest is IA_PD.

But, others in this community may want to have a look.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Suresh Krishnan [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 6:05 AM
To: Templin, Fred L <
[hidden email]>
Cc:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred,

 

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

 

There are a couple of references to DHCPv6 in the draft. I do not see any limitation to the use of IA_PD.

 

There is a recommendation against a IA_NA *only* network that is a straight reference to RFC7934 and nothing additional

 

"an IA_NA-only network is not recommended per RFC7934 [RFC7934] section 8"

 

 

"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address”

 

Is there some specific text you are concerned about?

 

Thanks

Suresh

 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

Bernie Volz (volz)

Hi Fred:

 

I did notice your draft and haven’t read it in detail (yet).

 

I do agree that unique prefix per host and PD are two different things. I agree that both may well have their place.

 

Again, the unique prefix per host requires nothing of the host (it is a way to operate a network) whereas PD does.

 

-          Bernie

 

From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:30 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[hidden email]>; Suresh Krishnan <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Bernie,

 

I am not opposing this draft going forward, but it is not the same thing as prefix

delegation. The document is about a router advertising a unique prefix per host,

whereas true prefix delegation is from a delegating router to a requesting router.

This is true even if the “requesting router” is an end system, as in:

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost/

 

I think both of these mechanisms will have their respective use cases. Please

have a look at the above document and share your thoughts here.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 12:57 PM
To: Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]>; Suresh Krishnan <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred:

 

My personal view is …

 

While many of us would have liked to see DHCPv6 PD used in this situation, I think this work is a nice practical solution without requiring new functionality in hosts. It is a deployment document (hence why it is in v6ops) – anyone can do this without requiring anything from the hosts that they don’t already support. That isn’t the case with DHCPv6 PD (most hosts don’t support this).

 

-          Bernie

 

From: dhcwg [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:45 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan <
[hidden email]>
Cc:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Suresh,

 

My intent on posting was to make the dhc community aware that there is a

BCP document in the publication queue that makes statements about DHCPv6.

My point about IA_PD concerns the following draft text:

 

   o  M-flag = 0 (UE/subscriber address is not managed through DHCPv6),

      this flag may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix

      delegation support is desired)

 

I find the text “may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix delegation

support is desired” to sound as if it is casting doubts on whether that future will

ever arrive. Can this WG live with text of this nature going forward in a BCP?

 

I do not have any specific comments on IA_NA; my area of interest is IA_PD.

But, others in this community may want to have a look.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: Suresh Krishnan [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 6:05 AM
To: Templin, Fred L <
[hidden email]>
Cc:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'

 

Hi Fred,

 

On Aug 24, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Templin, Fred L <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Have people in this community seen the following document that is working
its way through the publication process in the 'v6ops' working group:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

It seems to make some very limiting statements about DHCPv6 in a similar
spirit as was done in RFC7934 (the limiting statements apply to both IA_NA
and IA_PD).

 

There are a couple of references to DHCPv6 in the draft. I do not see any limitation to the use of IA_PD.

 

There is a recommendation against a IA_NA *only* network that is a straight reference to RFC7934 and nothing additional

 

"an IA_NA-only network is not recommended per RFC7934 [RFC7934] section 8"

 

 

"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address”

 

Is there some specific text you are concerned about?

 

Thanks

Suresh

 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg