[IPv6]Re: Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 3:40 PM David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 3:29 PM Ole Trøan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > On 3 Jul 2024, at 21:11, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Okay, if you insist, we can use an E flag instead. But I insist that
>> there either be a flag telling hosts they can do PD-per-host and not
>> request prefixes unless the flag is set or that hosts include a DHCPv6
>> option indicating that they are a host doing PD-per-device to distinguish
>> them from network infrastructure devices.
>>
>> Why wouldn’t any device requiring network extensions try DHCP PD anyway?
>> Could always tie it to the M-flag, where adding a IA_PD to the IA_NA has
>> little cost.
>>
>> The P-flag wouldn’t matter much for that. Of course we need to figure out
>> the issue of policy, because network extensions must be available within
>> existing addressing plans for all networks. Allowing only large networks to
>> do network extensions is irresponsible.
>>
>
> I want either a mechanism to distinguish between hosts doing tethering and
> classic network infrastructure or a way to signal hosts not to do
> PD-per-device (P=E=0). I prefer a DHCPv6 option that PD-per-devices are
> REQUIRED to set, but I will settle for an E flag and P=E=0, meaning don't
> do PD-per-device at all.
>

Let me put it another way: it is perfectly reasonable for a network to want
to support DHCPv6-PD for network infrastructure and not support the new
PD-per-device addressing mechanism or tethering.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================