RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

Hi Fred-

Here are my thoughts after the first read:

1.  Im really not sure an IETF document is really needed here.  What you wrote is an example of justification in a manner.  I agree some people probably need some papers to read that will get their minds thinking in an IPv6 sub delegation manner, but Im not sure if this should be an IETF doc or more just an informational paper sent to all the RIR's or posted on the NRO website.

2.  I have concern regarding the suggestions in section 2.3   Am I interpreting this correctly that you are suggesting upstreams do OSPF over VPN with residential customers?  That is something my network wont approve. I know there are some smaller networks that will do this, but I would suggest staying away from suggesting this as a good way of doing things.  Granted I know you didnt say this is a "good way" to do things, but it just makes me a little leary to even have it in the document.

Thats my 2 cents.  Thank you for working on this
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 5:09 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router@tools.ietf.org; draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

Let me make an introductory comment on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation
  "Prefix Sub-delegation in a SOHO/SMB Environment", Fred Baker, 27- Jul-09,
  <draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation-00.txt>

In IPv6 Operations, we have two posted documents right now that comment on prefix subdelegation. These are:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs
  "Use Cases and Requirements for an IPv6 CPE Router", Chris Donley, Deepak
  Kharbanda, John Jason Brzozowski, Yiu Lee, Jason Weil, Kirk Erichsen, Lee
  Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2-Jul-09,
  <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00.txt>

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router
  "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 25- Mar-09,
  <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt>

The premise is that an ISP might delegate a PA prefix to a SOHO/SMB network, perhaps using DHCP or etc. It would be nice if the prefix could be in turn sliced into /64 prefixes and sub-delegated to the various LANs in the subsidiary network.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router is trying to recommend to vendors that they should build CPE routers in a certain way, and specifies in part how sub-delegation would work. In my opinion as WG chair, I would rather that it said "do RFC X" than "do the following algorithm", as one might want to change the algorithm and the proposed algorithm has not been proven operationally. In general, I would like 6man to take on the work of describing that algorithm.

I threw draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation together very quickly for the purpose of saying "I would want you to reference something like <this>". That said, it is at least a first step, and may be the right answer for the moment. I would appreciate it if 6man could take a look at the discussion on sub-delegation in the two CPE drafts and at this draft, and decide first whether the draft is a reasonable first step toward solving the problem that the CPE drafts target, and then further decide whether and with what authors they would like to finish that discussion. I'm throwing no personal ego in here - if someone else would like to respond to the question, less work on my part sounds good to me.

Your opinions, please...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------