Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992E71AC4A7; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:13:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjCeFketDAup; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090F81AC85E; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:13:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rBCCDRaw018701; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:13:27 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DC4A201D2C; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:13:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B253201172; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:13:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rBCCDQN4031721; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:13:26 +0100
Message-ID: <52A9A866.5010901@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:13:26 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com> <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org> <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com> <902F8E77-5A5D-4762-88EB-150118CA1B8F@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <902F8E77-5A5D-4762-88EB-150118CA1B8F@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:13:42 -0000

Le 11/12/2013 19:46, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 10/12/2013 18:44, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>>> In no case do I believe that M or O provide any indication about
>>>>> IA_PD.
>>>>
>>>> You should read RFC 7084 again, then.
>>>>
>>>> Standards say what they say, not what you think they should say!
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> RFC7084 isn't a standard. can we please stop this now. having the M/O
>>> debate one more time is unlikely to provide a different result than
>>> the previous times we have had this debate.
>>
>> I agree we should go past the typical M/O debate, learn from it.
>>
>> One way I read the ongoing discussion, if I am not wrong, is that there
>> is difficulty created by the lack of a flag specific to IA_PD ("As far
>> as I know the M flag is linked only to IA_NA. As far as I can see IA_PD
>> is not linked to the M flag at all.”).
>
>>
>> Am I the only to read this as maybe a hint towards necessity of creation
>> of a new flag akin to M/O but specific to IA_PD? I.e. it would be allow
>> a Router to see whether it may be able to specifically request a
>> Delegated Prefix even when it would self-configure its address by other
>> means than DHCP.
>
> I don’t see the need. A router which wants a prefix should ask for one.
>
> The worst case is it doesn’t get an answer.
>
> The next worst case is it is denied.
>
> What is the benefit of having a flag to (sometimes) say that prefixes are
> available for the asking?

Just as with addresses, it may be more reliable to configure prefixes by 
starting with a beacon announcing availability.

But yes, it's just another 'what if' case.

>> (in the past some local thought was given about how RA would advertise a
>> capability of delegating prefixes, e.g. this 'D' flag in a draft:
>>
>>>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>    |     Type      |     Code      |           Checksum            |
>>>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>    | Cur Hop Limit |M|O|H|Prf|P|D|r|        Router Lifetime        |
>>>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> )
>>
>
> I wasn’t around for that discussion, but my guess would be that the discussion
> likely came to the same conclusion I did… If you want a prefix, ask. A D flag
> wouldn’t really improve anything.

It was a local non-IETF discussion.

The later versions of that draft eliminated that D flag but I forgot 
why.  It may be as you say.

Alex

>
> Owen
>
>
>