Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

Hi Brian,

OK, thanks for explaining and I think I understand. I have a picture in my mind
now that I think would satisfy everyone's concerns. I will try to get a new draft
version out with updated figures and text on Monday.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:08 AM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
> 
> On 16/12/2017 02:21, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>> Please review and send any new comments to the list, and please confirm whether
> >>> earlier comments have been addressed.
> >>
> >> It continue to describe the entity delegating the prefix as a "Delegating Router 'D'". The IPAM (IP address Management, and by
> extension IP Prefix Management) software can be implemented in a computer sold as a router, but there is no requirement that it be,
> and it usually is not. As a matter of fact, if a router is a system that forwards messages directed to addresses other than its own, in the
> context of an application such as a DHCPv6 address/prefix management process, it is acting as a host, not a router.
> >
> > Prefix delegation, more so than address assignment is coupled with the routing system.
> > Which is why RFC3633 only described a model where the delegating router and requesting router was directly connected.
> 
> They're coupled, but it isn't logically required that the entity that gives
> prefix P to a device is also the upstream router that will include P in an
> aggregate. I agree that's a natural implementation, but it isn't the only one.
> IPAMs and their generalisation in CASM, and draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management,
> are alternatives.
> 
> So I agree - it is a false assumption that the prefix delegator is
> a router, and that the delegation mechanism is RFC3633.
> 
> As far as the draft goes, I'd like to see this qualified:
> 
> "An example IPv6 PD service is the Dynamic Host
> Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315][RFC3633].  An
> alternative service based solely on IPv6 ND messaging has also
> been proposed [I-D.pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit]."
> 
> Maybe by adding that other, non-router, mechanisms may exist,
> such as proprietary IPAMs, draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management
> and draft-sun-casm-address-pool-management-yang (expired).
> 
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops