Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------IOYqOWypVIpsPu3E19U8pzjo"
Message-ID: <13441f45-57bf-48ea-9814-4d65214113a7@iotconsultancy.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:16:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: snac@ietf.org
From: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
Organization: IoTconsultancy.nl
Message-ID-Hash: DSRMR4KMCJOHSV6WDCMNOQADDEBWIYJD
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BSnac=5D_Why_is_an_AIL_prefix_with_only_the_=22P=22_flag_set_sui?=
	=?utf-8?q?table=3F?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/5cq8cpBXoA4ec-e8mQ4Hq_t6dp4>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------IOYqOWypVIpsPu3E19U8pzjo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi all,

quick question here on a topic that I know we've discussed before - but 
I still don't understand this.

In Section 5.1.1, we say that a prefix with the "A" flag not set and the 
"P" flag set is suitable. So the SNAC router doesn't have to publish its 
ULA prefix in a PIO to serve devices on the AIL.

Now there can be various mDNS devices on the AIL that don't support DHCP 
(so no DHCP-PD client functionality). RFC 8504 lists DHCPv6 based 
address allocation as not mandatory; and it for sure doesn't say that 
DHCPv6-PD would be recommended or even mandatory.

There may also be devices that don't know about the P flag semantics.
If the CE router in this cases advertises an on-link prefix with only 
"P" flag set, then all of these services become unreachable for devices 
in the stub network.
This goes against the SNAC goals we have.  So why did we define it like 
this?

regards
Esko


-- 
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl | +31 6 
2385 8339
--------------IOYqOWypVIpsPu3E19U8pzjo
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    Hi all,<br>
    <br>
    quick question here on a topic that I know we've discussed before -
    but I still don't understand this.<br>
    <br>
    In Section 5.1.1, we say that a prefix with the "A" flag not set and
    the "P" flag set is suitable. So the SNAC router doesn't have to
    publish its ULA prefix in a PIO to serve devices on the AIL.<br>
    <br>
    Now there can be various mDNS devices on the AIL that don't support
    DHCP (so no DHCP-PD client functionality). RFC 8504 lists DHCPv6
    based address allocation as not mandatory; and it for sure doesn't
    say that DHCPv6-PD would be recommended or even mandatory.<br>
    <br>
    There may also be devices that don't know about the P flag
    semantics.<br>
    If the CE router in this cases advertises an on-link prefix with
    only "P" flag set, then all of these services become unreachable for
    devices in the stub network.<br>
    This goes against the SNAC goals we have.  So why did we define it
    like this?<br>
    <br>
    regards<br>
    Esko<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
      <b>IoTconsultancy.nl</b> | Email/Teams:
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl">esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl</a> | +31 6 2385 8339</div>
  </body>
</html>

--------------IOYqOWypVIpsPu3E19U8pzjo--