RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation

["Erichsen, Kirk" <[e-mail]>]

Fred,
 
Organizationally, I agree with your asersion that referencing another document to describe the sub-delegation behavior gives some wiggle room.
 
-KE

________________________________

From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 6:09 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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...


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.