Re: 64share v2

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Joel, Ole,

> On Nov 10, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I don't care whether we use a flag or use the new universal-config option (assuming the WG advances the option.)  The exact mechanism is much less important to me than the point of enabling RA to do this job.

After reading the thread,

Seems like it should be called “prefix delegation” instead of “share”.    That is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal.

I would prefer it to be a standard as the intent is to use it with 3GPP style networks.

I like using RA for this as it appears to be a better fit for 3GPP style networks than DHCPv6 PD.

Bob



> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/10/2020 11:06 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> So we add a bit (as the earlier proposal did) to make clear that the intent in this case is to make the prefix available to the recipient. Over this pt-to-pt link.
>> Yes, or rather a new option. And text about the lifetime of the delegated prefix being decoupled of the link state.
>> Here is the required CDDL for the universal configuration option.
>> delegated-prefix = {
>>     prefix : tstr
>>     lifetime : uint
>> }
>> And when I get really good at CDDL I can add prefix length range restriction to [0-64].
>> Ole
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------