Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 4012B1AE3EC; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:08:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.991
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 v56lyzd6E8vI; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81681AE3EB; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [50.94.79.230] ([50.94.79.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id rBCJ5mhn017228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:05:59 -0800
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com rBCJ5mhn017228
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1386875160; bh=rbpkrYlLfVAaH6uvee3Fp1NPzvs=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=Vfaxa2ChuuQhLkTZ8rz16baxtlqgApwB01XorMwe+KF+11KUdlYalM0Fso7QStygb wf1AZkinxYvyDcnpUgwwiMVHcNB4Vv3lmB/rS6qJs7yYe8faykwCweupLR9oSXxAjH Xf/OkfgdALoJ6WhsCNrE7Peoga+FV/QBi5RLwD8M=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C354927-D586-4A26-B765-E9D52DCAFD41"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <52A9A93F.8050804@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:05:47 -0800
Message-Id: <9CB9D172-BA78-492B-B836-D7A9C6CB11A5@delong.com>
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>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:06:00 -0800 (PST)
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:08:11 -0000

> (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
	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