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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

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