Re: PIO-X in draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01 and earlier draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

I failed to explain myself at the mic, but I am thinking I need to state in
the document is the following:

    PIO-X and DHCPv6 PD are orthogonal

A network can serve a client a PIO-X *and* simultaneously answer any PD
requests from the same client.  They are not mutually exclusive nor are
they redundant.

In the model we tried to describe in the applicability statement, the
client has attached to the network, issued a vanilla RS, and the router
(perhaps doing PD on the client's behalf, or radius/diameter, or whatever)
has selected to send the client a PIO.  The extra bit just tells the client
that the PIO is not going to be given to anyone else (subject to various
lifetimes, etc).

If the client doesn't understand the X flag then it can still process the
PIO according to its existing code.  That's all.  No conflict with PD,
really.

On 30 March 2017 at 10:48, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, authors of PIO-X,
>
> My comment on the microphone:
>
> This is an earlier draft I co-authored that uses RS/RA messages to do
> Prefix Delegation.
>
> draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02
>
>
> I can resurrect it if necessary.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 28/03/2017 à 11:57, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>
> In addition to asking how is this draft helping with DHCPv6 Prefix
> Delegation,
>
> I suggest addition of the following references.
>
> Where draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01 says:
> >    There are several initiatives that propose network side practices
> >    that provide customer isolation, enhanced operational scalability,
> >    power efficiency, security and other benefits in IPv6 network
> >    deployments.  Some of these involve isolating a host (or RA accepting
> >    client node) so that the host is the only node to receive a specific
> >    prefix, including
> >
> >    o  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to hosts (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> >       draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost>), and
> >
> >    o  advertising a unique prefix per host via unique RAs.
> >       (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-
> >       per-host>).
>
> it makes sense to add:
>
>     o  Prefix Delegation extensions to ND protocol have been introduced
>        in <draft-kaiser-nd-pd-02>, <draft-lutchann-ipv6-delegate-
>        option-00> and <draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02>, and
>        probably earlier.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 04/03/2017 à 06:31, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> > I do not oppose a slot presenting PIO-X if time allows.
> >
> > However, as I understand it, PIO-X has a single goal - that to
> > accomodate 64share.
> >
> > I wonder whether PIO-X could work with DHCPv6-PD?  Would PIO-X help
> > DHCPv6-PD deployment?
> >
> > This is what I am going to ask at the mic.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 01/03/2017 à 11:27, Erik Kline a écrit :
> >> Ole,
> >>
> >> It's on me to get a -02 of PIO-X written and uploaded.  Might it be
> >> possible to get 5 minutes on that?
> >>
> >> -ek
> >>
> >> On 27 February 2017 at 06:16, <[e-mail]
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     The 6MAN chairs are planning the meeting in Chicago at IETF98.
> >>
> >>     If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send your
> >>     request for agenda time to the 6man chairs.   Please include in the
> >>     request, the title of the presentation, file name of the draft, the
> >>     speaker's name (and email), and how much time you would like.
> >>
> >>     We will prioritise drafts that are working group items and drafts
> >>     that have been actively discussed on the list.
> >>
> >>     We expect at least half of each talk’s presentation time to be used
> >>     for open discussion,
> >>     please plan your presentation accordingly.
> >>
> >>     New drafts not discussed on the mailing list prior to the meeting,
> >>     or drafts that do not appear to have support from the working group
> >>     are unlikely to get time at the meeting.
> >>
> >>     Please have agenda items to us by 2017-03-15.
> >>
> >>     Regards,
> >>
> >>     Bob & Ole
> >>
> >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> >>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>