Return-Path: 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 DAB05C1CAE9D for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.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 v64XCqrfLtME for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 20FF5C1CAE8E for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c9362c26d8so5896616a12.1 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:21:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; t=1729279262; x=1729884062; 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=N+d0ttb3XvKx9S+q4+JV1cylokQJ+zQxBXsgXWfjNDc=; b=AsuN8wX5m8+WvyHfYJvMNxbsE+5/FqKAmRPKCM9UvLjLD8YDcLGAL4eWIZuqHaPgVe PilYaTgFmf8IAJEaQn8lzax+sYRV5L/i9Dl29v6GSERmYfJKHudriekokT8lyUTomABR oSBy/wNE3uMTNLm7u1ORBNnRAmn4ZhHDW5pWY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729279262; x=1729884062; 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=N+d0ttb3XvKx9S+q4+JV1cylokQJ+zQxBXsgXWfjNDc=; b=D/c8iYTFtQJzD39H13HiuPpSj+AG/OXGMHXOTqzXj70FmgySL1xioUetGI0aSbcVje Cqz9AwcShNU/5GKgNkfh4IU+y+MAKRJHDEINwd2BPJdD9t3XFmR/yRFziEUc0M3gcDr9 yI6R8+K811E1xgDHLu304QCHSBCg9fY4DUerCECO+pfLOYnKgxTk8UR+4EwIE1aDVfTY KFa6N47Hl5Ed4JKgNSMUHurqcbr9RVv6iX4it8yZOI8O8bb139v0cpnjqwqIgyKfv+wZ bZQZLKTIjbARjzlQ15KdtHBPJZGc9fMqp07l1iaCfoXfpCH7gyB9LvjNSx2BSkXWHCzv jbVw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVV/ooxCfq0oJ3kz5kH9VaBooht3m/Cbf+ehlgjpyv2ArNt98ReDT3pbHPnwK2DXB01kMPkew==@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzv9JBr3tWyrnYtqeEz+uEF3nxUhKU5d3zqxuDn/Ycjco8QsJZ7 z4SzAx0QHvl8H4dpReA1UgxslYsBkw2HiHnBOCU1NFSiT6AWECHDDMDqshCIC2FbKG2sGUKffTT 3FzGIjlfBpRBcK7TTV8fydVmYaVqdJbtlH/zL6Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGokvmyYepWmWYcTCifPMB7ZqNKMCWiWAUbJMXNVE6K7eymkSgzk/L8xBi6b/DdphTnRwYq6imZoEUMvOau4r8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3553:b0:5c8:bbc3:9dff with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5ca0b08ca9amr3498588a12.5.1729279261776; Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11d52d74-b53a-4176-8128-5d2aa80320ca@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Timothy Winters Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:20:50 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dbfef0624c53471" Message-ID-Hash: 5ACLOTRTOISR2NVFSNJ3JCGYXO6HQ4QH X-Message-ID-Hash: 5ACLOTRTOISR2NVFSNJ3JCGYXO6HQ4QH X-MailFrom: tim@qacafe.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: Tim Chown , IPv6 Operations X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_Correction=3A_Re=3A_Working_group_Last_call=3A_d?= =?utf-8?q?raft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd?= List-Id: v6ops discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000001dbfef0624c53471 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi v6ops, I have made all the agreed upon changes from WGLC. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/05/ Happy to discuss the next steps at IETF-120. ~Tim On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon wrote: > Yes, we can do that, but that can lead to Xeno=E2=80=99s paradox if the u= pstream > doesn=E2=80=99t renew that prefix: each renewal is for a shorter and shor= ter time, > so as we get close to the end most of the traffic on the link is dhcp > renewals. > > I think if we get to T2 and don=E2=80=99t have a renewal, we can=E2=80=99= t renew > downstream. > > Op ma 12 aug 2024 om 16:15 schreef Timothy Winters > >> Hi Ted, >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:15=E2=80=AFAM Ted Lemon wr= ote: >> >>> Mow that you mention is, it does seem like a gap not to specify how the >>> isp lifetime and dependent router lifetime interact. >>> >>> For example, it=E2=80=99s probably worth making sure we don=E2=80=99t g= et into a Xeno=E2=80=99s >>> paradox situation with the downstream lease, because the remaining life= time >>> isn=E2=80=99t constant and hence the lifetime of the downstream lease c= ould always >>> be shorter than the lifetime of the prefix provided by the ISP. However= , >>> specifying that would complexify the document a bit. >>> >>> But the main point is that I can think of several ways to choose the >>> lifetime of the downstream lease based on the current text, and that=E2= =80=99s not >>> good. :) >>> >> Ted, one idea is we can borrow this text from the CPE Renumbering draft >> with a twist. >> >> LPD-X: IPv6 CE routers MUST NOT advertise prefixes via delegate prefixes >> via DHCPv6 on the LAN side using lifetimes that exceed the remaining >> lifetimes of the corresponding prefixes learned on the WAN side via >> DHCPv6-PD. For more details, see 9096 Section 3.3 >> . >> >> >>> Op ma 12 aug 2024 om 10:29 schreef Jen Linkova >>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> Sorry, coming late to the party (..again...;( ) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:36=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Winters wrote: >>>> > LPD-7: >>>> > The IPv6 CE Router MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a prefix-lengt= h >>>> of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the user. The pr= efix >>>> length of 64 is used as that is the current prefix length supported by >>>> SLAAC. >>>> >>>> While I do not have a strong opinion on that, I think that maybe >>>> saying smth like 'MUST provision....a prefix length suitable for SLAAC >>>> (currently /64)' would be better... >>>> >>>> I read the text you have in -04 as 'the router MUST provide /64 (btw >>>> we chose that number because it's the current value for SLAAC)', so >>>> the value is still hardcoded, so if we ever change the SLAAC prefix >>>> length, this document would still require an update. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> A few more comments: >>>> >>>> 1) shall the draft say anything about a flash renumbering/the change >>>> of the delegated prefix? >>>> LPD-3 allows the onlink prefix change if the topology or config >>>> changes, but what about the pool? Would it be too much to ask for a >>>> reconfigure message to be sent? >>>> 2) is it assumed that T1/T2 values are consistent with T1/T2 received >>>> from the ISP? >>>> 3) It's been mentioned already, I believe, that the draft updates 7084 >>>> but there is no update text. In particular, I think, it needs to >>>> update WPD-5 to include packets to delegated prefixes. >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon = wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> What happened to the updates we talked about earlier (e.g., MUST, >>>> and explaining what "by default" means)? :) >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm otherwise okay with this text though. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:04=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I can get on board with that. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> OLD: >>>> >>> LPD-7: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA >>>> prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> New: >>>> >>> LPD-7: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA >>>> prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. The prefix length of 64 is >>>> >>> used as that is the current prefix length supported by SLAAC. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ~Tim >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Timothy Winters >>>> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09 >>>> >>>> To: Tim Chown >>>> >>>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter , Nick >>>> Buraglio , IPv6 Operations < >>>> v6ops@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: >>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:24=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown >>> 40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Brian E Carpenter >>>> >>>> Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53 >>>> >>>> To: Nick Buraglio , IPv6 Operations >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: [v6ops] Correction: Re: Working group Last call: >>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I support the draft going forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I do have one comment on the scope of the document. I believe tha= t >>>> it should also cover use of PD for a locally assigned ULA prefix. Plea= se >>>> don't turn this into another endless ULA thread - but if the CE has >>>> assigned a ULA prefix, and supports PD for a GUA prefix, it should als= o >>>> support PD for the ULA prefix. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This seems reasonable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Should /64 be hard coded in the document, or should it refer to a >>>> prefix of the length required to support SLAAC as currently defined? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm concerned this will cause confusion amongst the CE Router >>>> community if I don't put an actual number. If you really want we can = 64 is >>>> based on the prefix length of SLAAC as currently defined. How strong = do >>>> you feel about this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not strongly, but the WG has of late been trying not to >>>> unnecessarily hard code the 64 into documents. If 64 is used, then a s= hort >>>> statement as to why would be good. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The pd-per-device draft uses /64 in an example and says =E2=80=9C= Note that >>>> the prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because that is the pre= fix >>>> length currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise required by t= he >>>> proposed deployment model=E2=80=9D and says a little more on /64 in se= ction 8 which >>>> also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64 isn=E2=80=99t =E2= =80=9Chard coded=E2=80=9D in >>>> there, in that its use in the example is clearly explained. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Minor nit =E2=80=93 the =E2=80=9Caddresses=E2=80=9D at the end of= para 1 of the intro >>>> should probably say =E2=80=9Cprefixes=E2=80=9D. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks, fixed in -03. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (There are several grammatical nits in the Introduction. I'll sen= d >>>> them to the author off-list.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Brian Carpenter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07-Aug-24 03:18, Nick Buraglio wrote: >>>> >>>> > All, >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > This message begins the working group last call for >>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd. Please read the draft and send your comme= nts >>>> in response to this email. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > The draft can be found here: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ < >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > nb >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> > v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> >>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, Jen Linkova >>>> >>> --0000000000001dbfef0624c53471 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi v6ops,

I have made all the agreed up= on changes from WGLC.


Hap= py to discuss the next steps at IETF-120.

~Tim

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
Yes, we can do that, but= that can lead to Xeno=E2=80=99s paradox if the upstream doesn=E2=80=99t re= new that prefix: each renewal is for a shorter and shorter time, so as we g= et close to the end most of the traffic on the link is dhcp renewals.=C2=A0=

I think if we get to T2= and don=E2=80=99t have a renewal, we can=E2=80=99t renew downstream.=C2=A0=

Op ma 12 aug 2024 om 16:15 schreef Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Hi Ted,=C2=A0



On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:15= =E2=80=AFAM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
Mow that you mention is, it does see= m like a gap not to specify how the isp lifetime and dependent router lifet= ime interact.=C2=A0

For = example, it=E2=80=99s probably worth making sure we don=E2=80=99t get into = a Xeno=E2=80=99s paradox situation with the downstream lease, because the r= emaining lifetime isn=E2=80=99t constant and hence the lifetime of the down= stream lease could always be shorter than the lifetime of the prefix provid= ed by the ISP. However, specifying that would complexify the document a bit= .

But the main point is = that I can think of several ways to choose the lifetime of the downstream l= ease based on the current text, and that=E2=80=99s not good. :)
Ted, one idea is we can borrow this text from the CPE Renumberi= ng draft with=C2=A0a twist.

LPD-X: IPv6 CE routers= MUST NOT advertise prefixes via delegate prefixes via DHCPv6 on the LAN si= de using lifetimes that exceed the remaining lifetimes of the corresponding= prefixes learned on the WAN side via DHCPv6-PD. For more details, see 9096 Section 3.3.


Op ma 12 aug 2024 om 10:29 schreef Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Hi Tim,

Sorry, coming late to the party (..again...;( )

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:36=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
> LPD-7:
> The IPv6 CE Router MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a prefix-length = of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the user. The prefix = length of 64 is used as that is the current prefix length supported by SLAA= C.

While I do not have a strong opinion on that, I think that maybe
saying smth like 'MUST provision....a prefix length suitable for SLAAC<= br> (currently /64)' would be better...

I read the text you have in -04 as 'the router MUST provide /64 (btw we chose that number because it's the current value for SLAAC)', so=
the value is still hardcoded, so if we ever change the SLAAC prefix
length, this document would still require an update.

What do you think?

A few more comments:

1) shall the draft say anything about a flash renumbering/the change
of the delegated prefix?
LPD-3 allows the onlink prefix change if the topology or config
changes, but what about the pool? Would it be too much to ask for a
reconfigure message to be sent?
2) is it assumed that T1/T2 values are consistent with T1/T2 received
from the ISP?
3) It's been mentioned already, I believe, that the draft updates 7084<= br> but there is no update text. In particular, I think, it needs to
update=C2=A0 WPD-5 to include packets to delegated prefixes.


> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>>
>> What happened to the updates we talked about earlier (e.g., MUST, = and explaining what "by default" means)? :)
>>
>> I'm otherwise okay with this text though.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:04=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:<= br> >>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> I can get on board with that.
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 LPD-7:=C2=A0 The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default= provision IA_PD IA prefixes with a prefix-length of 64.
>>>
>>> New:
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 LPD-7:=C2=A0 The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default= provision IA_PD IA prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. The prefix length = of 64 is
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 used as that is the current prefix length support= ed by SLAAC.
>>>
>>> ~Tim
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk= > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09
>>>> To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
>>>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Nick = Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Las= t call: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:24=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown <Tim.C= hown=3D40j= isc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53
>>>> To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Op= erations <v6ops@ietf= .org>
>>>> Subject: [v6ops] Correction: Re: Working group Last call: = draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
>>>>
>>>> I support the draft going forward.
>>>>
>>>> I do have one comment on the scope of the document. I beli= eve that it should also cover use of PD for a locally assigned ULA prefix. = Please don't turn this into another endless ULA thread - but if the CE = has assigned a ULA prefix, and supports PD for a GUA prefix, it should also= support PD for the ULA prefix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems reasonable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should /64 be hard coded in the document, or should it ref= er to a prefix of the length required to support SLAAC as currently defined= ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned this will cause confusion amongst the CE= Router community if I don't put an actual number.=C2=A0 If you really = want we can 64 is based on the prefix length of SLAAC as currently defined.= =C2=A0 How strong do you feel about this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not strongly, but the WG has of late been trying not to un= necessarily hard code the 64 into documents. If 64 is used, then a short st= atement as to why would be good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The pd-per-device draft uses /64 in an example and says = =E2=80=9CNote that the prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because t= hat is the prefix length currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise = required by the proposed deployment model=E2=80=9D and says a little more o= n /64 in section 8 which also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64= isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9Chard coded=E2=80=9D in there, in that its use in th= e example is clearly explained.
>>>>
>>>> Minor nit =E2=80=93 the =E2=80=9Caddresses=E2=80=9D at the= end of para 1 of the intro should probably say =E2=80=9Cprefixes=E2=80=9D.=
>>>>
>>>> thanks, fixed in -03.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (There are several grammatical nits in the Introduction. I= 'll send them to the author off-list.)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Brian Carpenter
>>>>
>>>> On 07-Aug-24 03:18, Nick Buraglio wrote:
>>>> > All,
>>>> >
>>>> > This message begins the working group last call for d= raft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd. Please read the draft and send your comments in= response to this email.
>>>> >
>>>> > The draft can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/>
>>>> >
>>>> > nb
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org



--
Cheers, Jen Linkova
--0000000000001dbfef0624c53471--