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

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 10 March 2016 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8F012D9C5; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bWkAaQ196M3; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C9112D9CA; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l68so30621166wml.1; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:17:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=Vn6hwJmqxxJWKdAfGq1TWI7aOuEm7rzN7s0caeHCrH0=; b=OqHIBiqCRaW65GeLxksyW/8RuV3y6ZyUoxT2hsPPIqn9UrURZyCz25AaI70eg1I3Ok S9VJ1Y51/1W+UoLqhYpdzPzYFtBOr5QbQC1XJch9kyQz7SsWeWAt4lhrFhXHFDFrmrPW pEYpY/DJh7INE46dYScDplR0cQN8HK9/JlAttTRwMIwk8HShS9UY8tyvCYTHVCItuuYq mBwToPPsAh7LspSojkrk5hZE5/N/QhQjz+AsyMKlnA26Ta8yKR5zf00UBb/zUAPFnrXZ DH9YkyCntbNcLFs7ykU417dfVIBwh0XR1PdJOfzcnuAEdcJfI0wUXKGoEEiYlxZqeqkg 9NUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=Vn6hwJmqxxJWKdAfGq1TWI7aOuEm7rzN7s0caeHCrH0=; b=V1pYyNiWqEpBWyQum8L9JWIoLArBbcr+Hbmjxpe/WJhiOowjiGIKmTMAX+ouH0bNOe ZXDBqU9cJnkc0laxz8/6mhRDLNpeWtAjldrqIXZCAPmRuekKwqxcs/UMO4FdgxBLNTsz YjrfKO/1MKaNbjPj1MeDwgWB5VhzDmbR8yExrvSEvlLmAfwKNxee6TddKBd3Xkl5RNy7 bc27AlVF8dd7rB0CA+Xs1vddUMfRDbKQWng6033JEZ0oaWuLGbMm9/QmDmcthzDIDFuf e6GSAqI9xj49leglD8qL5SVP4joPTlp4JvFGwjtG6+8qPQcVltXLV+PIe9ZKT7ucV7V+ 1dZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLLYji4EK0OSQQVARK7rY5CXmrn2F+ncee2Ntx9RL0H/WkAcDwic34a/621zq0d7Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u2mr4117936wjy.61.1457619462791; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id e4sm3788025wma.10.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:17:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Lorenzo Colitti'" <>
References: <12bc01d17986$bba33930$32e9ab90$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:17:36 +0200
Message-ID: <14ed01d17ad7$99f4ce50$cdde6af0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_14EE_01D17AE8.5D7E61A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHewfxFjP4C5OgROf5auyR89lWgmwIXz/JanydsUfA=
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, 'IETF Discussion' <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:26:08 -0000


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




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




thanks for the review. To respond to your comment:


On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Roni Even <> 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.