RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I understand the recommendation and find it reasonable, Are members of the DHC WG aware of this usage?

Thanks

Roni

 

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

 

Roni,

 

thanks for the review. To respond to your comment:

 

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:

Small question: In section 6 last bullet “While [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6 PD itself does not require that the client forward IPv6 packets not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that the client be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].”

Is this a good practice to recommend?

Also I understand that in the here the recommendation is that all IPv6 packets will be addressed to the DHCPv6 client (not a router) and this is why he will not forward them.

 

The intent here is to say that while the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the words "requesting router" to denote the DHCP client, is nothing in DHCPv6 PD itself that requires the PD client to be a router (where, in IPv6, the term "router" is defined in RFC2460).

 

So - even though the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the term "requesting router", a host can use DHCPv6 PD to receive a prefix as well. The host can pick some addresses for that prefix for its own use, originate/terminate packets on those addresses, and not forward packets addressed to any of the other addresses in the prefix.

 

Regards,

Lorenzo