Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 6:27 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Well, only if nodes implemented the PCP method, which they don't... but
> yes, this is true in theory.
>
> <#m_6103543545046494038_m_-2734443725323270902_>
> Given that the PCP method is a IETF defined mechanism and this document
> does put it on the top of the pecking order, I think it is better to use
> something like the alternate formulation that I suggested.
>
>
> If it is actually bad for nodes to implement PCP, it would be good if this
> were discussed.  I hadn’t heard this before, and in fact consider it a
> problem that routers implement the horribly complex uPnP protocol instead
> of PCP.
>
> I realize this is an inopportune time given that you are finishing a
> document, but if you have time can you expand on this a tiny bit?
>

I didn't say discovering the pref64 via PCP is bad, I said I don't think
hosts implement it. Note: what I am referring to is specifically only
discovering the pref64 via PCP. ISTM that whether hosts do or do not
implement other parts of PCP, and whether they should or not, is out of
scope for this document. What did you want to expand on specifically?