Re: [v6ops] Continuing WGLC: ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 1:06 PM Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Reading it with the new Introduction, I have one remaining question:
> To what extent is I-D.collink-6man-pio-pflag a requirement? The two
> issues raised in section 11 ("Migration Strategies and Co-existence
> with SLAAC Using Prefixes From PIO") suggest to me that if this draft
> was a BCP, the new PIO flag would be at least a SHOULD. Since the draft
> is labelled "Informational" there's no formal need to resolve this,
> but should the language be strengthened somehow?

As the draft is focusing on the network side and not on the client
behavior, I-D.collink-6man-pio-pflag is not a requirement for the
network.
I'm deploying this in some parts of my enterprise network w/o P-flag,
for RFC7084-like clients. P-flag is smth mobile endpoints implementing
DHCPv6-PD client SHOULD support indeed.

> >> A minor remark (not really suggesting a change):
> >>
> >>>   6.1. Prefix Pool Allocation
> >> ...
> >>> Other deployment models, such as prefix pools shared over multiple links or routers, are possible, but not described in this document.
> >>
> >> This would in fact be a very obvious application for RFC 8992, a bit similar to the scenario in appendix A.2 thereof.
> >
> > Oh interesting, thanks for the reference. I've not been following
> > ANI-related work, to be honest - will read RFC 8992.
> >
> >> On 07-Oct-23 05:04, Joel Halpern wrote:
> >>> Thank you.  The introduction now seems to me quite clear, and lays out
> >>> the case for the procedures the draft introduces.  I also appreciate the
> >>> caveats and clarifications in the Applicability and Limitations section (5).
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>>
> >>> Joel
> >>>
> >>> On 10/6/2023 11:48 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
> >>>> Dear v6ops WG,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have just submitted the -03 version for
> >>>> ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device - thank you very much to everyone who
> >>>> provided feedback!
> >>>> Please review and let us know if the draft is ready to progress.
> >>>>
> >>>> The main changes:
> >>>> - Introduction is rewritten (much shorter and, hopefully, more clear)
> >>>> - some text about multiple addresses use cases moved to Appendix.
> >>>> - The Applicability and Limitation section is moved up, so it's in the
> >>>> beginning - hopefully it would help the readers to understand what
> >>>> scenarios are in scope and what are not.
> >>>> - Client Mobility section added to discuss what happens when a client
> >>>> moves between network attachment points.
> >>>> - the draft is now explicit that it focuses on "a pool per link"
> >>>> scenario, which also drastically simplifies the routing and relay
> >>>> requirements (the routing section is updated as well).
> >>>> - the draft now suggests Active Leasequery as one of the mechanisms to
> >>>> keep the relay state in sync with the server.
> >>>> - The Prefix Consideration section has been updated and states that
> >>>> the endpoints are not required to use SLAAC - it's just the network
> >>>> allows them to do that, if they need to.
> >>>> - various changes to address other comments received during the WGLC so far.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to ask everyone who has expressed concerns during this WGLC
> >>>> (you are in Cc: - hopefully I didn't miss anyone) to review the new
> >>>> version and let the author know if you still have concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you!
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:35 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt is now available. It
> >>>>> is a work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       Title:   Using DHCPv6-PD to Allocate Unique IPv6 Prefix per Client in Large Broadcast Networks
> >>>>>       Authors: Lorenzo Colitti
> >>>>>                Jen Linkova
> >>>>>                Xiao Ma
> >>>>>       Name:    draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt
> >>>>>       Pages:   18
> >>>>>       Dates:   2023-10-06
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Abstract:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       This document discusses an IPv6 deployment scenario when individual
> >>>>>       clients connected to large broadcast networks (such as enterprise
> >>>>>       networks or public Wi-Fi networks) are allocated unique prefixes via
> >>>>>       DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is also an HTML version available at:
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> >>>>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> v6ops mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry