[v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

What it means to be in the rough is not that you are in the minority. It is
that a technical objection has been raised that has been considered /and
addressed/ by the working group, and that you don’t agree with the
consensus.

Here it is I think very clear that if you don’t specify a prefix width, it
will not be possible to get the result we are trying to get. So you need to
specify a width. A future document can change the width if necessary.

Saying in parentheses “currently 64” is really just asking for
interoperability problems. The text as previously written was more correct.

Op ma 12 aug 2024 om 13:33 schreef Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:29 AM Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Sorry, coming late to the party (..again...;( )
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:36 AM Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> 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
>> 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?
>>
>> I can live with this, I'm concerned if we don't put the actual value in
> it will lead to confusion.  I'm getting the feeling that I'm in the
> rough, so I'll make this change..
>
>> 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?
>>
> CE Router DHCPv6 Servers on the LAN don't support DHCP Authentication
> therefore I don't think this is reasonable.
>
>> 2) is it assumed that T1/T2 values are consistent with T1/T2 received
>> from the ISP?
>>
> No, not at all.
>
>> 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.
>>
> That's an interesting point, I'll work to add an update to WPD-5 for
> clarification.
>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:15 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> 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 PM Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> 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 AM Tim Chown <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Tim,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>
>> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09
>> >>>> To: Tim Chown <[e-mail]>
>> >>>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, Nick Buraglio <
>> [e-mail]>, IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
>> >>>> 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 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>> >>>> Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53
>> >>>> To: Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>, IPv6 Operations <
>> [e-mail]>
>> >>>> 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 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 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 short
>> statement as to why would be good.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The pd-per-device draft uses /64 in an example and says “Note that
>> the prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because that is the prefix
>> length currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise required by the
>> proposed deployment model” and says a little more on /64 in section 8 which
>> also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64 isn’t “hard coded” in
>> there, in that its use in the example is clearly explained.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Minor nit – the “addresses” at the end of para 1 of the intro should
>> probably say “prefixes”.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>>      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 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 -- [e-mail]
>> >>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Jen Linkova
>>
>