Re: IA_PD bit in RA (was: RFC7084)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 11:22 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 14D361AE14E; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:22:21 -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 wkTu1fgQ4vrg; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:22:19 -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 D762E1AD957; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:22:18 -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 rBDBM8sS029028; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:22:08 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BE8C20151B; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:22:29 +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 5BAB2201388; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:22:29 +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 rBDBM26V028000; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:22:08 +0100
Message-ID: <52AAEDDA.6010504@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:22:02 +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: IA_PD bit in RA (was: 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> <CAAedzxq6ym-uZJQVC7JTMgKnETpGiNt3JCmkJeGW2MVnw+sixA@mail.gmail.com> <52A83C92.4020204@gmail.com> <A1A3DD00-96D8-4D73-B5F1-1CA705196689@delong.com> <52A9A93F.8050804@gmail.com> <9CB9D172-BA78-492B-B836-D7A9C6CB11A5@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <9CB9D172-BA78-492B-B836-D7A9C6CB11A5@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@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: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:22:21 -0000

Le 12/12/2013 20:05, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>> (should the RA provide the delegated prefix as well to compare favorably
>> to the PMIP example? but again this is the 'what if' branch, deviating
>> from the main CPE discussion)
>
> I don’t think anyone really wants to move PD into RA. I think that would
> be inappropriate, personally.
>
> Without moving the PD functionality into RA, then, I would say that the
> current situation is fine.
>
> CPE should ask for PD if it wants a prefix.
> It should deal with one of five possible results in response:
>
> 1.No response

As one senses it, implementing it is not easy.

How would one implement the decision 'no response' other than waiting 
for one a certain amount of time?  That wait is what makes people think 
it takes too long, especially mobile people.

Alex

> 2.Denial
> 3.Requested prefix size granted
> 4.Longer prefix (smaller net block) granted
> 5.Shorter prefix (larger net block) granted
>
> Nobody has yet made a good case for why this behavior is problematic.
>
> Owen
>