Re: PIO-X in draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01 and earlier draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02

I would say "might be" or "can be" orthogonal;  in my opinion, it would be
unfortunate and kind of pointless for a network to provide a /64 with PIO-X
and then only offer a /64 prefix through DHCPv6-PD, and in my opinion this
would be over-lapping, and not orthogonal.  However, if a network provided
a /64 via PIO-X and offered a /60, /56, or larger, prefix via DHCPv6-PD
that would make a lot of sense to me and would be orthogonal.

A question; would it be valid for a network offer a /64 via PIO-X and then
offer the /56 encompassing the /64 via DHCPv6-PD, I think it would be good
to cover this case, stating if it is valid or not, in any discussion of
concurrent use of PIO-X with DHCPv6-PD. I can see where some would think
it's a valid case, and others would not, clearly stating it's one way or
the other seems like a good idea in my opinion.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:

> I failed to explain myself at the mic, but I am thinking I need to state
> in the document is the following:
>
>     PIO-X and DHCPv6 PD are orthogonal
>
> A network can serve a client a PIO-X *and* simultaneously answer any PD
> requests from the same client.  They are not mutually exclusive nor are
> they redundant.
>
> In the model we tried to describe in the applicability statement, the
> client has attached to the network, issued a vanilla RS, and the router
> (perhaps doing PD on the client's behalf, or radius/diameter, or whatever)
> has selected to send the client a PIO.  The extra bit just tells the client
> that the PIO is not going to be given to anyone else (subject to various
> lifetimes, etc).
>
> If the client doesn't understand the X flag then it can still process the
> PIO according to its existing code.  That's all.  No conflict with PD,
> really.
>
> On 30 March 2017 at 10:48, Alexandre Petrescu <
> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, authors of PIO-X,
>>
>> My comment on the microphone:
>>
>> This is an earlier draft I co-authored that uses RS/RA messages to do
>> Prefix Delegation.
>>
>> draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02
>>
>>
>> I can resurrect it if necessary.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 28/03/2017 à 11:57, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>
>> In addition to asking how is this draft helping with DHCPv6 Prefix
>> Delegation,
>>
>> I suggest addition of the following references.
>>
>> Where draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01 says:
>> >    There are several initiatives that propose network side practices
>> >    that provide customer isolation, enhanced operational scalability,
>> >    power efficiency, security and other benefits in IPv6 network
>> >    deployments.  Some of these involve isolating a host (or RA accepting
>> >    client node) so that the host is the only node to receive a specific
>> >    prefix, including
>> >
>> >    o  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to hosts (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/
>> >       draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost>), and
>> >
>> >    o  advertising a unique prefix per host via unique RAs.
>> >       (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-p
>> refix-
>> >       per-host>).
>>
>> it makes sense to add:
>>
>>     o  Prefix Delegation extensions to ND protocol have been introduced
>>        in <draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02>, <draft-lutchann-ipv6-delegate-
>>        option-00> and <draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02>, and
>>        probably earlier.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 04/03/2017 à 06:31, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> > I do not oppose a slot presenting PIO-X if time allows.
>> >
>> > However, as I understand it, PIO-X has a single goal - that to
>> > accomodate 64share.
>> >
>> > I wonder whether PIO-X could work with DHCPv6-PD?  Would PIO-X help
>> > DHCPv6-PD deployment?
>> >
>> > This is what I am going to ask at the mic.
>> >
>> > Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 01/03/2017 à 11:27, Erik Kline a écrit :
>> >> Ole,
>> >>
>> >> It's on me to get a -02 of PIO-X written and uploaded.  Might it be
>> >> possible to get 5 minutes on that?
>> >>
>> >> -ek
>> >>
>> >> On 27 February 2017 at 06:16, <otroan@employees.org
>> >> <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     The 6MAN chairs are planning the meeting in Chicago at IETF98.
>> >>
>> >>     If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send your
>> >>     request for agenda time to the 6man chairs.   Please include in the
>> >>     request, the title of the presentation, file name of the draft, the
>> >>     speaker's name (and email), and how much time you would like.
>> >>
>> >>     We will prioritise drafts that are working group items and drafts
>> >>     that have been actively discussed on the list.
>> >>
>> >>     We expect at least half of each talk’s presentation time to be used
>> >>     for open discussion,
>> >>     please plan your presentation accordingly.
>> >>
>> >>     New drafts not discussed on the mailing list prior to the meeting,
>> >>     or drafts that do not appear to have support from the working group
>> >>     are unlikely to get time at the meeting.
>> >>
>> >>     Please have agenda items to us by 2017-03-15.
>> >>
>> >>     Regards,
>> >>
>> >>     Bob & Ole
>> >>
>> >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------
>> >>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> >>     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>> >>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l
>> istinfo/ipv6
>> >>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>> >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> >> ipv6@ietf.org
>> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> > ipv6@ietf.org
>> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing listipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================