Re: [v6ops] Chair decision on WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,

> Your concerns are around client behaviour, but those are out of scope for this draft. This draft focuses on what the network needs to do to provide prefixes to clients. And it's not true to say there are no clients: there are plenty of existing clients in the form of RFC 7084 routers. These require no code changes. SNAC routers are being standardized elsewhere, but those will also be able to use this draft as is.

That’s a bit like saying we are only going to specify the server side of the DHCP protocol and the client side is out of scope...

You don’t know if this “operational” guidance is correct until you have implementations and deployment.

Isn’t the scenario here Enterprise networks? Then IPv6 CE routers as specified in 7084 might not be the best example. 7084 uses PD for delegation across administrative boundaries. If I recall it also assumes hierarchical PD (although I’m not sure if that’s spelt out clearly).

You may be right that most of 7084 would also apply to a host that implements this. But too early to tell I think.

> Even if, as you say, DHCPv6 PD on hosts is not well defined or widely implemented, that is very much orthogonal to this document. No matter how hosts behave, the network needs to behave as described in this draft in order to support them. So this document is useful by itself.

How can you be so certain, given no running code?
It would certainly have been a useful project at the hackathon.

Which is why I suggest this to be put on hold until we have host requirements document and running code.
It’s not like there is a rush for this, as it will not be operable before implementations exists anyway.

> As for relationships with other documents: SNAC is already cited and I don't see what needs to be said in this draft. If a SNAC router asks for a prefix and the network wants to provide it, then this document provides operational guidance for how to do that.  Same with draft-winters-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd - that talks about IPv6 CE routers as defined by RFC 7084, and again, this document explains how the network needs to behave to delegate prefixes to RFC 7084 clients.

So what’s the operational guidance here, is it for flat PD or hierarchical PD?
A network configured for hierarchical PD will be unlikely to have a policy allowing more than a single prefix, while a flat PD network will allow for more but likely all of the same size.
An operational document should make a stance. And it should not conflict with the other two documents.

O.