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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 07 December 2016 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26331129490 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:38:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.417
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DvIW_P67p4v for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E01129A13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:37:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9936; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481121460; x=1482331060; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=R1UVvfMLMk+0jkCPEHilmmZjxkdQR57uPa62vACj560=; b=Myvq9EaqxwVBkhKIWIbYRu8EJwGVUbkI+jgT7h2OOxdz1djolACcP5QN oXeO9adfhMAxpaeK1HHF/SAt6/lAtoqYGTYfc/jtQB6IRnfiZk6yb7hD9 E9gZ+cPjtcCUJ4av/EtjYYaQ4sK1YMpVCIb/6QxPxxENJgj13JSw1G4iF M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,310,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="355932772"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2016 14:37:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com []) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB7EbeSw031833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:37:40 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ( by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:37:39 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:37:39 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: Follow up on WGLC Comment on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - numbering the uplink
Thread-Index: AQHSUJd1gDdAeLIkAkCwO4m81GvA0Q==
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:37:39 +0000
Message-ID: <0491981A-7B53-42C9-92D4-7080BCEB0406@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1c.0.161115
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0491981A7B5342C992D47080BCEB0406ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/HIMVPdgf5xpKONcOY_FlhYF8ZDg>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] Follow up on WGLC Comment on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - numbering the uplink
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:38:39 -0000

In https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg17590.html, Tim commented:

Section (-05, this is in the -06 document):

p.60 [p. 58] There was discussion in 6man/v6ops about using a /64 from the delegated prefix for a site for numbering the uplink. I think Jordi’s recent survey of ISPs showed this was more common than expected? So do we want to say MUST NOT assign here?  (I have no strong feeling myself…)

A question for Tim and Lorenzo (and others) is should we do something to relax this “MUST NOT” given the interest in using PD to clients (not just routers).

I think a key point here is not to assign the uplink (delegating) router an address from the delegated prefix on that downlink interface? But that shouldn’t prevent the client itself from assigning an address on that interface from the delegated prefix.

-          Bernie