Re: [Snac] [v6ops] "router cascade with DHCPv6-PD"

I think given that it's the standard and that it seems like it should work,
the better question to ask is, "is there a reason to design a whole new
protocol to replace it because we think it might not work?"

It's possible that trying to revive HNCP and (if necessary) fix it might
produce a better outcome, but someone has to want to do that, and I don't
see anyone working on it.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:22 AM Vasilenko Eduard <
vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:

> Is it really possible to assume that we could use it for PA blocks?
>
> For a massive production.
>
> Or for some reason “DHCP Reconfirm Request” would not happen?
>
> Ed/
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 7:01 PM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>; snac@ietf.org;
> V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>; Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>; Michael
> Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] [Snac] "router cascade with DHCPv6-PD"
>
>
>
> DHCP Reconfirm Request works for withdrawal.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 7:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard <
> vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like we are talking about address appointment. ND is for this
> task by definition. DHCP too.
>
>
>
> ND is capable of announcements and withdrawal.
>
> DHCP is only for an announcement.
>
> Big difference.
>
>
>
> Ed/
>
> *From:* v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ole Troan
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:25 PM
> *To:* Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
> *Cc:* snac@ietf.org; V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>; Juliusz Chroboczek <
> jch@irif.fr>; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] [Snac] "router cascade with DHCPv6-PD"
>
>
>
> Ted,
>
>
>
> Exactly!
>
>
>
> I don't know how you do stable prefix assignment to subnets with NDP/ICMP.
> I'm sure you could, but how much different than PD would it be at that
> point?
>
>
>
> The original prefix delegation proposal did exactly that:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02
>
>
>
> And the observation was then “this looks just like DHCP, why not use that?”
>
>
>
> O.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:22 AM Klaus Frank <klaus.frank@posteo.de> wrote:
>
> I agree, with that. And tbh, I personally think introducing DHCPv6-PD at
> all was a conceptional mistake. It's duties should have been carried out
> by ICMPv6 and NDP...
>
> Also there is no real alternative for environments with dynamically
> assigned prefixes or where clients are roaming between networks and need
> a delegated prefix locally for e.g. Docker or VMs... Except for "use
> DHCPv6-PD to get the prefix, run a DIY script to update configuration
> files and restart radvd and/or bird..."
>
> On 22.01.2023 20:56, Gert Doering wrote:
> > DHCPv6-PD seems to be a half-finished routing protocol already, and
> trying to
> > wiggle around admitting it.
> >
> > Gert Doering
> >          -- NetMaster
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> --
> Snac mailing list
> Snac@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac
>
>
>
>