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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 7 Dec 2016, at 14:37, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

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

Section 17.1.10.1 (-05, this is 18.2.10.1 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).

To be specific, the /64-to-the-host context is as per draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01.

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.

Indeed, and the above draft describes the process for the host using a /128 from the delegated prefix, and use of DAD, at the end of section 4.

Tim