Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis (RFC8415) - Thanks to all!!

[Roy Marples <[e-mail]>]

Isn't that what Prefix Exclude is for?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6603

Roy

On 18/12/2018 19:48, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> Hi Bernie,
> 
> We have such an operational document aligned with v6ops:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost/
> 
> Here is the text that speaks to this subject (where “the node” refers
> 
> to the DHCPv6 PD requesting router/client and “the prefix” refers to
> 
> the delegated prefix):
> 
>     “In a second alternative, the node can assign as many addresses as it
> 
>     wants from the prefix to the upstream interface over which the prefix
> 
>     was received, but in normal practice does not assign the prefix
> 
>     itself (or subnets from the prefix) to the upstream interface.  If
> 
>     the node assigned the prefix to the upstream interface, any neighbors
> 
>     on the upstream link receiving an RA could configure addresses from
> 
>     the prefix and a default route with the node as the next hop.  This
> 
>     could create a loop where upstream link neighbors send packets to the
> 
>     node which in turn forwards them to another upstream link neighbor.
> 
>     Still, there may be cases where the node provides services for
> 
>     dependent neighbors on the upstream link that have no other means of
> 
>     connecting to the network.  ([RFC8415] chose to remain silent on this
> 
>     subject since it is operational rather than functional in nature.)”
> 
> How does this look?
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> *From:* Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2018 5:00 PM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: 3315bis (RFC8415) - Thanks to all!!
> 
> Thanks ... it was a major effort by many - including you!
> 
> Regarding your questions, I believe it is the “Or, is it the case that 
> RFC8415 simply chose to remain silent on the subject and leave it to 
> other documents of a more operational nature to deal with the subject?”
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> 
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Templin (US), Fred L 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Bernie,
> 
>     Congratulations on seeing this important work through to successful
>     publication!
> 
>     I do have one question regarding prefix delegation: in RFC3633, it says:
> 
>         “Upon the receipt of a valid Reply message, for each IA_PD the
> 
>         requesting router assigns a subnet from each of the delegated
> 
>         prefixes to each of the links to which the associated interfaces are
> 
>         attached, with the following exception: the requesting router MUST
> 
>         NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
> 
>         prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message
> 
>         from the delegating router.”
> 
>     Unless I missed it, I do not see the same “MUST NOT” in RFC8415.
>     What can
> 
>     we infer from this? Does it mean that it is now OK for the RR to
>     assign the
> 
>     prefix to the upstream link? Or, is it the case that RFC8415 simply
>     chose to
> 
>     remain silent on the subject and leave it to other documents of a more
> 
>     operational nature to deal with the subject?
> 
>     Thanks in advance,
> 
>     Fred
> 
>     *From:* dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Bernie
>     Volz (volz)
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:02 PM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* Ralph Droms <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* [dhcwg] 3315bis (RFC8415) - Thanks to all!!
> 
>     Hi:
> 
>     It was great to finally see the multi-year effort on 3315bis be
>     published (RFC8415). draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00 was published
>     January 2014. My guess is that this has taken about 5 years as work
>     began a few months prior to convert RFC3315 text into an XML to
>     produce this first document.
> 
>     Thanks to the co-authors, Ralph Droms (as document shepherd), the
>     many reviewers for their feedback, and the WG in supporting the
>     effort. And, to the RFC-Editor in their work to finalize the document.
> 
>     But … We’re not done yet, as hopefully we’ll work to advance DHCPv6
>     to full standard – hopefully that will be a much smaller (and
>     shorter) effort!!
> 
>     If you do find issues or areas of concern as you reference the
>     document (and please start using it instead of 3315!), please be
>     sure to file an errata or at least drop the co-authors a note.
> 
>     Again, thanks for everyone’s efforts!!
> 
>     -Bernie Volz
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>