[homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Pierre Pfister <[e-mail]>]

See inline for comments for the points that are not being discussed in the other mail thread.


> Le 9 juil. 2015 à 14:31, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Updated position based on feedback from Int-Dir review (Suresh
> Krishnan)...
> 
> I don't object to the publication of this document, but there are some
> issues that need to be remedied.
> 
> 1. Section 5 provides the considerations for selecting prefixes. However,
> those considerations are incomplete. RFC 7421 provides the analysis for
> the use of the /64 boundary.  The Homenet Architecture (RFC 7368)
> discusses various Homenet-related issues around not getting sufficient
> address space to allocate /64 prefixes to links. RFC 6164 discusses the
> use of 127-bit prefixes on point-to-point links. Why does this section
> not mention any of these considerations when selecting a prefix?

Is being discussed in the other mail thread.

> 
> 2. I am raising Alvaro's point about the impact of topology changes to a
> DISCUSS.  I think there needs to be sufficient discussion in the document
> on the impact of topology changes on the prefix assignment algorithm and
> the impact of changing prefix assignments on nodes in the network. This
> ties in to the point raised by Brian Carpenter on the claim in the
> Introduction that this algorithm can be used in "fully autonomic as well
> as professionally managed networks". This is especially true when
> convergence is described as occurring "eventually ».

Is being discussed in the other mail thread.

> 3. I understand that this document became standalone when the HNCP and
> DNCP documents split. What dependencies/assumptions does this document
> have on either one of them?  There appears to be some assumptions on the
> Node ID and the flood algorithm.

Is being discussed in the other mail thread.

> 
> 4. How does the algorithm deal with prefix delegations that have holes
> (e.g. RFC6603)? This text seems to preclude such delegations.
> 

It can deal with it very well.
See HNCP document section 6.2.5: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-07#section-6.2.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-07#section-6.2.5>

You can even have multiple holes in the same delegated prefix.

> 5. Section 6 discusses Listener nodes. Does there need to be some
> discussion/warning about links that consist of all Listeners?  The link
> will not get a prefix assigned to it in such a situation.

The statement is true, but I don’t think a warning is necessary because this 
could happen even with other nodes as well.
Prefix assignment is not mandatory (In this document I mean, it is in HNCP 
and would probably be under some circumstances in any profile document),
nodes may decide to not assign prefixes at all, although they are capable of
doing it.

The decision of making an assignment is out of scope of the document:
Decide whether the creation of a new assignment for the given Delegated
       Prefix and Link pair is desired (As any result would be valid,
       the process of making this decision is out of the scope of this
       document) and do the following:


> 
> 6. How does this approach deal with asynchronous link state changes?

Sorry but google does not tell me what an 'asynchronous link state change’ is.
Could you please clarify your question ?
> 

Thanks

- Pierre