Re: [homegate] Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 27 July 2009 12:16 UTC

Message-Id: <E20BA8AC-8834-4F14-B84D-72D2233F7A0C@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: homegate@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6C2F751B-119F-41D6-878C-C4CFBD57DF14@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:15:10 +0200
References: <6C2F751B-119F-41D6-878C-C4CFBD57DF14@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [homegate] Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Precedence: list

A comment that may be relevant to homegate as well...


On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> Let me make an introductory comment on:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation
> "Prefix Sub-delegation in a SOHO/SMB Environment", Fred Baker, 27- 
> Jul-09,
> <draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation-00.txt>
>
> In IPv6 Operations, we have two posted documents right now that  
> comment on prefix subdelegation. These are:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and- 
> reqs
> "Use Cases and Requirements for an IPv6 CPE Router", Chris Donley,  
> Deepak
> Kharbanda, John Jason Brzozowski, Yiu Lee, Jason Weil, Kirk  
> Erichsen, Lee
> Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2-Jul-09,
> <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00.txt>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router
> "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 25- 
> Mar-09,
> <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt>
>
> The premise is that an ISP might delegate a PA prefix to a SOHO/SMB  
> network, perhaps using DHCP or etc. It would be nice if the prefix  
> could be in turn sliced into /64 prefixes and sub-delegated to the  
> various LANs in the subsidiary network.
>
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router is trying to recommend to vendors  
> that they should build CPE routers in a certain way, and specifies  
> in part how sub-delegation would work. In my opinion as WG chair, I  
> would rather that it said "do RFC X" than "do the following  
> algorithm", as one might want to change the algorithm and the  
> proposed algorithm has not been proven operationally. In general, I  
> would like 6man to take on the work of describing that algorithm.
>
> I threw draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation together very quickly  
> for the purpose of saying "I would want you to reference something  
> like <this>". That said, it is at least a first step, and may be the  
> right answer for the moment. I would appreciate it if 6man could  
> take a look at the discussion on sub-delegation in the two CPE  
> drafts and at this draft, and decide first whether the draft is a  
> reasonable first step toward solving the problem that the CPE drafts  
> target, and then further decide whether and with what authors they  
> would like to finish that discussion. I'm throwing no personal ego  
> in here - if someone else would like to respond to the question,  
> less work on my part sounds good to me.
>
> Your opinions, please...

Re: [homegate] Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegat… Fred Baker