RE: [dhcwg] Brokenness of specs w.r.t. client behavior with M&O bits

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Joseph,

Thank you for your responses, comment inline 

>As for your question, I would say that it depends on implementations.
>AFAIK, there are already several opensources like ISC DHCP 
>which supports IA_NA(maybe IA_TA) as well as IA_PD. And 
>Windows 2008 server also does. Even though details of 
>implementations may be different, site prefixes are derived 
>from delegated prefixes and the LAN interface is configured 
>with addresses from the site prefixes as pre-configured 
>policy. Then, site prefixes are advertised through following 
>RA messages from the LAN interface and hosts have addresses 
>configured via SLAAC. However, I am not sure that ND proxy has 
>been deployed well.

Actually I was more concerned on operator policies: if operator is
running DHCPv6, will it be their policy decision whether or not to allow
hosts to request for prefixes as well? 

Consider cellular host case:
- host implements e.g. ND proxy and DHCPv6 PD for WAN connection sharing
- host attaches to a network where only DHCPv6 happens to be used
- host gets single /128 IPv6 address from DHCPv6
- host tries to get some prefixes for its LAN interface with DHCPv6 PD,
but network's policy rejects the prefix request

Now what can host do? Tell user that the currently attached network does
not allow network connection sharing feature?

In IPv4 it is possible to do NAT to avoid this problem..

Best regards,

	Teemu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------