Re: Question for w.g. on <<draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jen,

> Good question - so the benefit of the format in the draft is that we
> can encode the suffix if needed (in addition to better representation
> of the lifetime).
> Ole, Bob, what do you think?
> There is no case for non-zero suffix now but shall we assume that it's
> not going to change, esp. providing RFC6052 allows that?

The only use case 6052 presents for suffix is subsumed by MAP.
You would also enter into the same problems you have with multiple option formats. You would end up with interoperability problems. Some hosts on the links supports the new suffix definition and some don't.

And you would have to somehow signal what this new mechanism using suffix actually was...

I think you have two options here, either you do this as a "service announcement" or you do it as configuration. In the former you have to make darn sure that both sides are in agreement of what the "service definition" is. In the latter case the host can present what it supports/expects and the network can offer a suitable service to the best of its ability. That we typically do with DHCP.

Cheers,
Ole