Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 5:28 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; Fred Baker (fred)
> Cc: David Farmer; [e-mail]; John Brzozowski
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
> 
> On 1/5/16 18:46 , Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Farmer [mailto:[e-mail]]
> ...
> >> In my view AERO and this draft are working in slightly overlapping, but
> >> different solution spaces.
> >
> > We don't know that without a use case analysis.
> 
> Well as I read this, this doesn't implement DHCPv6 PD. Furthermore, it
> doesn't need any client software.  It uses SLAAC and responds to each
> IPv6 ND Router Solicitation with a unicast Router Advertisement with
> different prefix for each client.  It provides DNS server info with
> RADNS and stateless DHCPv6 if the client send a request.

How would an unmodified client know that the prefix it receives in
a unicast RA is in fact uniquely assigned for the client's exclusive use
and not advertised to any other client?

> The client requirement are just standard SLAAC, and RADNS or stateless
> DHCPv6, that is it.  No DHCPv6 PD client needed, am I missing something?

I think so. An unmodified client receiving a PIO with (A=1, L=0) would have
no way of knowing that the prefix is being delegated for its own exclusive
use and that the prefix would not be advertised to other clients.

> There is a bunch of WiFi parts too, just like AERO has tunnel stuff, but
> that is fairly standard WiFi infrastructure bits.

I thought this work was based on tunneling, too? And, AERO can run fine
over WiFi just the same as over any link-layer technology.

> So, there is a really quick use case analysis for you and I'll
> reiterate; in my view AERO and this draft are working in slightly
> overlapping, but different solution spaces.

I don't see how multi-addressing in the spirit of "host-addr-availabiity"
can be supported on an unmodified client. There would need to be
additional specification telling the client what to do when it receives
a PIO with (A=1,L=0). But then, the document becomes a spec and
not an informational. And, clients would have to be modified.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================