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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The way I understood the comment was that the draft needs more supporting
> text on the rationale for doing what the document describes (e.g., the
> benefit
> for not having to place the upstream interface in promiscuous mode,
> efficiencies
> for not doing link-scoped multicasting over the upstream interface,
> avoiding
> disturbance of other nodes on the upstream link, etc.
>
> I did not think the comment was asking to expand the document to cover all
> methods of conveying a /64 to the host (e.g., unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host,
> 3GPP, etc.). This document only concerns methods that meet the description
> of prefix delegation as described for examples such as DHCPv6 PD.
>

FWIW my comment at the mike was asking for the latter as well. There are
many ways that a host can get a dedicated prefix, and we should provide
guidance on what a host should do in this situation. Also if we look at
current deployments, way more hosts get dedicated prefixes via RAs then via
PD: all 3GPP networks provide a dedicated prefix, and very few hosts
implement DHCPv6 prefix delegation. So focusing on DHCPv6 PD is focusing on
a niche use case.