Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - Respond by Jan 14, 2020

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

I forgot to say we wrote a draft about a Problem Statement in 2013:

draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00.txt:
>    The operation of a prefix delegation procedure with the DHCPv6
>    protocol may need route setup and maintenance at the Delegating
>    Router, Requesting Router and on the entity on which the Relay agent
>    is implemented.  This document describes the problem of routing
>    during DHCPv6 prefix delegation, and is illustrated by ADSL-type and
>    cellular-type of topologies which may use Relays; we refer to section
>    14 of RFC 3633 which mentions the need of 'a protocol or other out of
>    band communication to add routing information for delegated
>    prefixes'.  Based on this problem, a number of requirements from the
>    service providers are described.

Alex


Le 08/01/2020 à 12:00, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Hi,
> I support it.  I am not a co-author.
> 
> In the past I did work with colleagues on an implementation for Relay 
> with PD.
> 
> Since then I realized that operators offering Internet access with 
> DHCPv6-PD might benefit from a server-relay seggregation to accommodate 
> a larger number of users and richer applications.
> 
> There might be obstacles in achieving that, however.  These obstacles 
> might not come from the DHCPv6 nor PD technology nor DHCP standards. 
> They might come from the architecture of IPv6 which still imposes a 64 
> limit, which effectively limits the genericity of the prefix length in 
> DHCPv6-PD.
> 
> I hope these things will advance  hand in hand and wish all the best to 
> the pd-relay-requirements draft.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 08/01/2020 à 11:05, [e-mail] a écrit :
>> Hi Bernie,
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder. I support its adoption (as a co-=author).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>>
>>> On 8. Jan 2020, at 02:31, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>> A reminder – we are looking for an indication of interest in adopting 
>>> this work in the DHC WG, or whether anyone is opposed to it.
>>> For the record (with WG chair hat OFF), I support adopting this work. 
>>> I think this document would help vendors to supply better products 
>>> and improve subscriber experience for networks in which prefix 
>>> delegation is used.
>>>
>>>   * Bernie
>>>
>>> *From:*dhcwg <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>*On Behalf Of*Bernie Volz (volz)
>>> *Sent:*Sunday, December 29, 2019 11:03 AM
>>> *To:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:*[dhcwg] Adoption Call for 
>>> draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - Respond by Jan 14, 2020
>>> Hello:
>>> As follow up from the IETF-106 DHC WG meeting, we are initiating the 
>>> WG call for adoption 
>>> onhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf...org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/>(DHCPv6 
>>> Prefix Delegating Relay). This document was presented at IETF-106 – 
>>> seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-delegating-relay-00. 
>>>
>>> This starts the call for Adoption of this document. Please respond by 
>>> January 14, 2020.
>>> Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or 
>>> should not adopt this document as a work item.
>>> And, Happy New Year!
>>>
>>>   * Tomek & Bernie
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg