[v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessary? M flag already does enough (Re: Re: A detail review of draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-04)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:16 AM Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> v6ops has a draft for PD on the LAN to improve this situation.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/
>
> Please feel free to send comments, we are about to do WGLC on it.
>

Hey, Tim. I hadn't read the document in a while. I see this text in the
last requirement:

The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA prefixes with a
prefix-length of 64.

I read this as "if the DHCP client doesn't specify a narrower prefix, the
CE router SHOULD .. 64"

Is that what you intended? If not, I think you need to say more. If that is
what you intended, this won't work, because if we stack CE routers, I
expect every CE router to ask for a /48, rather than not specifying, and
that would mean that we'd always delegate the narrowest remaining subset of
the outer CE router's delegation to the first inner router that makes a
request.