Re: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

Only opinion I have is, it seems to makes sense to have the algorithm text
worked in 6man.

The network models standard delegation (non-hierarchical) versus advanced
delegation (hierarchical) would still reside in a CPE requirements draft
right in v6ops?

John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Corporation
e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com
m) 609-377-6594
=========================================

> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:09:20 -0400
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------