[v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4

It is not clear what you intend here

"IPv6 Router Advertisement Interval = 300s"

The router advertisement interval is not configured as an absolute value but as
minimum and maximum bounds (MinRtrAdvInterval and MaxRtrAdvInterval) which are
used to calculate the actual advertisement interval. When the RA is sent from
an interface, the actual interval is an uniformly distributed random value
between the MinRtrAdvInterval and MaxRtrAdvInterval. At the very minimum you
need to clarify if you would like to have this as a lower bound or as an upper
bound.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4

-> I think text is needed here to handle the case where the DNS server is
provided in the RA itself  (RFC8106)

"In addition it will use stateless DHCPv6 to get the IPv6 address of the DNS
server"

-> I am not sure what is the motivation for this text.

"however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6 to receive a service provider
managed IPv6 address"

-> This text seems incorrect

"due to the L-bit set, it SHOULD send this traffic to the First Hop Provider
Router"

I think it should be the exact opposite. i.e. say *unset* instead of set

"due to the L-bit being unset, it SHOULD send this traffic to the First Hop
Provider Router"