[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 <[e-mail]>]

Yes, much better. Thanks!

Why SHOULD and not MUST?  What is the case where they would not do this?

Op di 6 aug 2024 om 11:26 schreef Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>

> Hi Ted,
>
> How about this:
>
> OLD:
> LPD-8: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA prefixes
> with a prefix-length of 64.
>
> New:
> LPD-8: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD provision IA_PD prefixes with a
> prefix-length of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the
> user.
>
> I'll make this change in the next revision.
>
> ~Tim
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:49 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>
>>> Hi Ted,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 2:30 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:16 AM Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>