IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Stateless Prefix Delegation I-D updated (draft-savolainen-stateless-pd)

Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net> Thu, 04 March 2010 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D27928C0CE for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvfG3DXEBN6v for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB243A874B for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:36:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Nn8Kh-000NyO-CU for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:31:07 +0000
Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <tony@lava.net>) id 1Nn8Ke-000Ny9-9a for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:31:04 +0000
Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F25D033E; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:30:57 -1000 (HST)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:30:56 -1000
From: Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>
To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
cc: konrad@silmor.de, otroan@employees.org, 3gv6@ietf.org, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Stateless Prefix Delegation I-D updated (draft-savolainen-stateless-pd)
In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F589CA40336@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1003040009230.2749@cust11794.lava.net>
References: <1267309761.3168.5.camel@Nokia-N900-51-1> <08c08ee106e47b366ab18ca2f0a9a722.squirrel@squirrel.six.silmor.de> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F589C9BCEE7@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <ab1c41801a9af836af3e300b4d3a6cce.squirrel@squirrel.six.silmor.de> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F589CA40336@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (OSX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:

> Hmm.. but that problem is perhaps a problem only for the AC, right? I 
> mean for all provisioning, policy and charging (PCC) etc entities it is 
> just single /56 that needs to be considered per subscription, not a /56 
> and a /64?
>
>> What I described below has the upside that the third route does not
>> overlap with the others. It has of course the downside that it uses up
>> slightly more address space.
>
> .. and that PCC needs to consider both /56 and /64 for a single 
> subscription, whileas in the alternative PCC has to consider only single 
> /56.

The problem with carving out a /64 out of the assigned /56 to provision 
each end-user is that the end-user must now make an exception for that /64 
as being outside of their network with regard to policy even though it's 
in their assigned address range.  Ie. this can unnecessarilly complicate 
things for the end-user in building ACLs for example.

Personally I'd prefer giving the end-user maximum flexibility in how they 
actually use their assigned /56 (or /48) rather than deny them the 
use of one /64.

Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp:  tony@lava.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email