Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 15 December 2017 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFE0124F57 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DmPjrc1zgSPo for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB15C124D6C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.10.119] (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B6532D51E8; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:20:29 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C114)
In-Reply-To: <e1590482-b8ce-ccf1-1d71-873e1b6d7285@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:20:26 +0100
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0FF2EE3E-C839-48AC-B169-B39B5E01C95A@employees.org>
References: <b9e5919554204ad48f33740eaac4ccb8@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DB4EE076-6231-4305-8514-0CC165C9EFD9@gmail.com> <827FCFAE-6A5A-4BC8-AF20-0A7D65F4EEB1@employees.org> <e1590482-b8ce-ccf1-1d71-873e1b6d7285@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/11vLMsAgWHEcZIOwA0KQW_TgaSo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:20:33 -0000

Brian,

Sure, but we have learnt that the matter of route injection is a thorny problem. 
If you do not topologically restrict the problem, how do you solve it? Among separate administrative domains. 

Ole

> On 15 Dec 2017, at bu20:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16/12/2017 02:21, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> Please review and send any new comments to the list, and please confirm whether
>>>> earlier comments have been addressed.
>>> 
>>> It continue to describe the entity delegating the prefix as a "Delegating Router 'D'". The IPAM (IP address Management, and by extension IP Prefix Management) software can be implemented in a computer sold as a router, but there is no requirement that it be, and it usually is not. As a matter of fact, if a router is a system that forwards messages directed to addresses other than its own, in the context of an application such as a DHCPv6 address/prefix management process, it is acting as a host, not a router.
>> 
>> Prefix delegation, more so than address assignment is coupled with the routing system.
>> Which is why RFC3633 only described a model where the delegating router and requesting router was directly connected.
> 
> They're coupled, but it isn't logically required that the entity that gives
> prefix P to a device is also the upstream router that will include P in an
> aggregate. I agree that's a natural implementation, but it isn't the only one.
> IPAMs and their generalisation in CASM, and draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management,
> are alternatives.
> 
> So I agree - it is a false assumption that the prefix delegator is
> a router, and that the delegation mechanism is RFC3633.
> 
> As far as the draft goes, I'd like to see this qualified:
> 
> "An example IPv6 PD service is the Dynamic Host
> Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315][RFC3633].  An
> alternative service based solely on IPv6 ND messaging has also
> been proposed [I-D.pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit]."
> 
> Maybe by adding that other, non-router, mechanisms may exist,
> such as proprietary IPAMs, draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management
> and draft-sun-casm-address-pool-management-yang (expired).
> 
>   Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops