Re: IPv6 PD

timbeck04@verizon.net wrote:
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com> Date: 
>> 2006/07/28 Fri AM 10:34:22 CDT To: timbeck04@verizon.net Cc: 
>> "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>,
> Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List 
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: IPv6 PD
> 
>> timbeck04@verizon.net wrote:
>>> Hi Fred/all,
>>> 
>>> The former subject line became far too unwieldy, and the subject
>>>  of IPv6 referred to in the attached exchange is of interest.
>>> 
>>> IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host. 
>>> Using ISP parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE 
>>> (delegating) router and the requesting router is the CE router.
>>> 
>>> The abstract of RFC 3769 which defines the IPv6 PD requirements 
>>> says: "This document describes requirements for how IPv6 address
>>>  prefixes should be delegated to an IPv6 subscriber's network (or
>>>  "site")." Section 1 echoes this point. It's logical to infer
>>> from Section 4 that the CPE is the requesting router (not host):
>>> "A rogue PE can issue bogus prefixes to a requesting router."
>>> 
>>> Given the way RFC 3633 is written, there is reason to pre-suppose
>>>  that the client will behave as a router. In DHCPv6 PD, the ISP 
>>> router that serves as the DHCPv6 server is the delegating router.
>>>  The CPE that serves as the DHCPv6 client is the requesting 
>>> router (Section 3). Section 5.1 illustrates an example 
>>> architecture wherein this is shown. The point is also made that 
>>> the requesting router subnets whatever prefixes are delegated to 
>>> it and assigns those longer prefixes to links within the 
>>> subscriber network.
>>> 
>>> a. There has neither ever been nor is there now a standard 
>>> defining ICMPv6 PD. There are however at least three expired 
>>> drafts (of which I am aware) on the subject: i) 
>>> draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02.txt ii) 
>>> draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-01.txt iii) 
>>> draft-arunt-prefix-delegation-using-icmpv6-00.txt
> 
>> Doing it with Mobile IPv6: draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation-00 
>> August 2005.
> 
> This draft is expired. Are there any plans for reviving/resubmitting
>  it?

Frankly speaking I don't know.  It was heatly debated at some point,
because another draft was proposing prefix delegation with DHCPv6
between HA and MR draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-00 (DHCPv6 instead of MIP6).
  And since then not any was progressed, and they are both WG items.  I
think somehow the authors lost interest, or the deployment is not yet
'round the corner.

Alex

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------