Re: [dhcwg] Follow up on WGLC Comment on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - numbering the uplink

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 13 Dec 2016, at 09:58, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I wonder if we could change the text above to read:

   -  For each delegated prefix, the client assigns a subnet to each of
      the links to which the associated interfaces are attached, with
      the following exception: the client MUST NOT advertise any delegated
      prefixes or subnets from the delegated prefix(es) to the link
      through which it received the DHCP message from the server (see
      [RFC6603<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6603>] for exceptions).

The change here is “assign” to “advertise” (as in send a router advertise with a PIO on that link). This would allow the client to “assign” the subnet to that link, but just not advertise it on that link.

If you want to suggest better and more clear wording than just that single word change or that wasn’t the intention, please do!

Your suggested text works for me.

That said, I'm not entirely sure there's a conflict here. I think the expected model for prefix-per-host is that that the host would get a /64 from a delegating router or server, assign it to a loopback or internal virtual interface, and potentially use one or more of the addresses in that /64 on the link through which it received. This model would conflict with the current text only if using an IPv6 address from that /64 counts as "assigning a subnet from the delegated prefix". Perhaps it does, and even if it doesn't, it may be better to go with your suggested text anyway.

I think Bernie’s text is fine.

Tim