Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 15 November 2013 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FF111E8164; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:19:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NeHRnAZA4T4; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7D711E815C; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDE420084; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7490963B88; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:19:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B7563AEF; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:19:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FB78DF8E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <11836.1384276281@sandelman.ca> <CAKOT5Ko2OO=U_0jADb6R88JiFh59BLDSe4P0haqgaBr2M7HobA@mail.gmail.com> <3673.1384528283@sandelman.ca> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FB78DF8E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:19:25 -0500
Message-ID: <21159.1384543165@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "robmgl@cisco.com" <robmgl@cisco.com>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] PPP, DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:19:27 -0000

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> wrote:
    > 4. the statement " Further, if the WAN link is numbered as a /64 from
    > within the prefix that (will be) delegated, that also would seem to
    > make the CPE's firewall even more complex, so I'd rather number it
    > outside the PD if it needs to be numbered at all."  Agree that firewall
    > config might be more difficult, but don't forget that it saves address
    > space +, more important, injects less administration for the ISP to
    > keep track of prefixes.

Yes, it all seems way more elegate to do it that way.
If you, as a CPE vendor are happy with getting such a thing, then, if one has
to number that WAN link, I'd prefer to do it this way.

I think that this might be a new statement on the homenet side.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works