Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/10/2017 02:57 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/9/17 16:05, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 12:02 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
[....]
>>
>>
>>
>>> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
>>> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
>>> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
>>> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).
>>
>> Describing the virtues of one prefix per node, or how isolating nodes
>> (no "on link prefix") or the like are all fine for an informational
>> document, or even as a BCP (if that's how the wg feels).
> 
> there is an available recourse to an onlink prefix in form of the
> link-local address for a deligated prefix.
> 
>    Or, optionally in some cases, a
>    solicited RA response could be sent unicast to the link-local address
>    of the subscriber as detailed in RFC4861
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13#section-4

Fine with that. Then one would need to specify that a different prefix
should be announced to each node (based on the source addr of the RS?).
And also specify when you stop doing that. Or when you consider that
such prefix is no longer in use. And what you do if you run out of
available/free prefixes.

Isn't that a protocol? I wonder how folks define what a protocol is...

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492