[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 <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 06 August 2024 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 C9B89C151531 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NaTfUNCGlS4s for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x2e.google.com (mail-oa1-x2e.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA0EC15152F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2e.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-260e1b5576aso463208fac.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Aug 2024 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1722955754; x=1723560554; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+CO3ww2ZOzUmvADSOkUY6TjrvSQ3g3IUL9UTybwEAxI=; b=Bo1heuSb0IPppNDsuq9jO3W+SFnEMGT5KpR1cKoKEfkNa/03vltBlpTNPezUvqdcPY MBDBX3XCoSTHfVzK4z2+qtrRT3616Eda+zjaI2c4JjkLXzLIOBrb0pORKxowEXchzXZr hVR0xjx7FbsxF7T22QY56WmVm1PIGiEaX3IdUZEfl37I1L2gPGVwtaIuQg3EaYkCVRT4 RB63D/Kv1OaWCl5LSkTKEt+sv3DVClaFeW6tjk0rInkG8+Q7mqaabt23LSHCtcWhk0nR MkKt5f8w0yQ/CnrkwFeT456CSsgQDsXRif/hNYh1tUzFnJ6Ue+jyUxdTd0zbiofoxLLI 3p/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722955754; x=1723560554; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=+CO3ww2ZOzUmvADSOkUY6TjrvSQ3g3IUL9UTybwEAxI=; b=iV3KpBXQ6e+ChH+K3300IM/YtFskCwLjFi9OmT1Ex2nL3NaniVSOboHzEjZz+WigAv VnmECNf4Y4kNfiYrF7syVXiLCQEFEG/CooSkew+n7zr2p/I344mShnaLEfgsZHJcq0l8 iRwxjbiFR2Xe/rhArzF23RWScvrHXfqZSkyAUh5xmncol5RK5rp9mD4l16MZpzpmzBCG BgPKa5LvHd8A6yV+7CP44V2V7CiJCsko8iivxwAO9QopZc5q86Yy4Me5S48thb8DIgGP 08JOox4HEHTBtBX42fUcuM+XANpI5SyllVuhKcydQdPxHeYO5i7KlWvhztAcNJKQKaFF UAQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxZd4q9XNuKZVHVSsHOsgi7WzA7fKP7o3kyEedA9BpAnJKnJoKR po3UDERUZTrBzEudz1V0mMzfD153MuEheM6IMwoESecQTsu7iEgp62Zuu/htNQpP46veWrEF6W+ +zGug4ucUt6wPGJ1tB3Ds1PpNBqMQfXYDmx2C3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEo/XFGc00ROtg6E2+2NeINVvhr6gEoBuMMEf21ZuKHJtjKCaFNUsImMVjoSKUMwhr3HbugDRn/35Rb8rPycLk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3913:b0:260:ec71:27dc with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-26891f3ee4bmr19588172fac.47.1722955753631; Tue, 06 Aug 2024 07:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN-Dau1R=oszbFx40a2U+Cnx354vi44Osk4ruuGcGDodzYKo7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BASyraNzL3htxxGkbeo5akCS-fLeH8_49GFb-fTc4TB0fQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2wNs=6QO6+vHHb0OQj2GV1HRe76BHo4rdomjCFUBES_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=NaGHxwQ29Z_Uk2royyb-Nix21kcY+12JC9=FDHtOQ+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1+WyvDyxXZBEKFVQ=Pjf38-ku_V9WbmLRBuys5v2R3Pg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=1bXJrUNvSOe322SdTHGfe-Odw67NSnTE4NY0ZGyqJ8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3WdgCQFurWJjiC-Tr4a5hj25pjOvhNG8O=tne=JwA0eA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nKo2b1XyW1-bBvAk9N2DuDkqbury6d+z900P+FxQTzrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2vMX4-6BD-SLQYk-DDj8ia3ySSLwLdMrRAU1canMjJsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BARVGGCaD-aO2Y+tE0c=JDY0kCjxmfZ-yUeSuR8S554omg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w9PcN4ej6_Ly-jLoKcMeWP+-UA00xGHPG9jm2dz4_F2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nmk9+G_QadBV8D=Ty_0sxMFNYxijd+CERr7w8YWhJaxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wAjamRg4sNnpAF0KBB5SrHgJUxcoy1rXvdrR3SWC3xog@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr33a9LZ4A0UZsFUMsR-SZ2GfO1q-2Cifts+KsAd_g5ObQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z8S426+G+AbpPDjrLdbmYDsArXaoAFMRuSbx41weWoHw@mail.gmail.com> <DB9PR07MB77717BE049C3B0DA943F19CCD6BE2@DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAPt1N1nNC0HEGOxP3-8-G+wdLxGywCOH-_4W7fodM+0YmtLcRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJgLMKuwtpSpF2JnR5dYfh6hmo+-LunbJxe7Z6WTTaNh=nAtVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kx79vyHnU-=tfGLrRDgiRiKTu0D1aYdYn_vYTQUMK99w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJgLMKtCxh=H+bt7c9F9nn0XhLFDvhvshvu6Jp6CqN3NbK8D-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJgLMKtCxh=H+bt7c9F9nn0XhLFDvhvshvu6Jp6CqN3NbK8D-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:49:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kDk=gbCeO7_bSsiROUC4BfKCGZhTaQyJp0Ez_G3nG0MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8cbf4061f04e587"
Message-ID-Hash: WRERNCAB2SVVEON3CK647T5JWEUKW734
X-Message-ID-Hash: WRERNCAB2SVVEON3CK647T5JWEUKW734
X-MailFrom: mellon@fugue.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [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)
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BeZPzGW6xrG26uczSRpsAtX39p4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>
What I’m saying is that the text is ambiguous because you don’t say what “by default” means. I am one of the people who wants to get rid of the hierarchical model. Op di 6 aug 2024 om 09:05 schreef Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> > Hi Ted, > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 2:30 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:16 AM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> 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. >> > That's what the working group wanted. The original version of this > document had more text about how to support hierarchical or flat models. > After a round or two discussion what came out of that was routers behind a > CE Router are no longer a CE Router as they aren't at the customer edge. > The draft reflects that general consensus, that leans towards deploying a > flat model as opposed to hierarchical, which is where the /64 length > derives from. > > I think it may be time for another document to specify what to do if > you're a Internal Router (but not SNAC). We could include all the flat > model text for becoming a DHCP Relay and giving out IA_PD with /64 from the > customer edge. > >> >> >
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Ted Lemon
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Michael Breuer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Daryll Swer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Timothy Winters
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Michael Breuer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Ted Lemon
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Timothy Winters
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Timothy Winters
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Daryll Swer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Ted Lemon
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Daryll Swer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Philipp S. Tiesel
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Daryll Swer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Timothy Winters
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Ted Lemon
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Daryll Swer
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Timothy Winters
- [v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessar… Ted Lemon