Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

[tianxiang li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bernie,

Thank you for the comments， we will update a new version of the draft very
soon.
During the ietf 96 meeting, comments were raised about changing the term
"requesting router / delegating router" to "client / server". Should we
change it in the updated version?

Cheers,
Tianxiang

2016-07-25 20:47 GMT+08:00 Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]>:

> Hi:
>
>
>
> Here’s some comments related to the
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02 version.
>
>
>
> Section 1:
>
> -          “as it just help a client” -> change help to helps?
>
> -          Same area, perhaps mention that 3315bis is dropping use of the
> lifetime hints?
>
> -          Later – “handle the prefixes which lengths are different” –
> “handle prefixes with lengths different from the prefix-length hint”?
>
>
>
> I wonder whether a “general solution” section should be added which says
> something like:
>
>
>
> “Therefore, the recommendation to address the issues discussed in this
> document, is for a client that wants (at least) to have a delegated prefix
> of a specific prefix length to always include an IAPREFIX option with just
> the prefix length hint in addition to any IAPREFIX options it has included
> for each IA_PD in any Solicit, Request, Renew, and Rebind messages it
> sends. While a server is free to ignore the hint, servers that do not
> choose to ignore the hint should attempt to assign a prefix of at least the
> hint length (or shorter) if one is available. Whether a server favors the
> hint or avoiding a renumbering event is a matter of policy for the server.”
>
>
>
> Note that this could actually be taken as one way to interpret the
> original RFC 3633 text, which said:
>
>
>
>    The requesting router may include prefixes in the IA_PDs as a hint to
>
>    the delegating router about specific prefixes for which the
>
>    requesting router has a preference.
>
>
>
> This text was as part of the Solicit discussion, but perhaps it was
> intended to apply to subsequent transactions as well (Request, Renew,
> Rebind).
>
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
>
>