Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-05.txt

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> Risks for the network operators:
> 1) The loss of the ability to differentiate between Routers extending the network outside of the device itself (currently using DHCPv6-PD) and hosts

Isn’t this somewhat mythical even today? If something asks for PD, operators assume it is a router extending the network, but this isn’t guaranteed. 

> 2) The ability of network extension outside a single device might be unwanted in enterprise-style networks and may introduce security risks for them or the risk of not complying with the local laws/regulations

This isn’t new and this draft doesn’t change it. 
I’ve already expressed details on this in previous posts. 

> Cons:
> 1) The requirement of SLAAC ability (/64 per device) is unnecessary and makes this method unusable for the address-space constraint networks

1. There shouldn’t be address constrained networks in v6. 

2. This has been discussed ad nauseum here and it seems a small vocal minority opposes this requirement while others find it useful. 

> 2) Address plans of the early adopters had to be changed

Meg, I don’t see a way around this. 

> 3) It causes pressure on network operators to provide additional address space while simple network space extension doesn't have to be possible. This produces additional pressure on LIRs and could also lead to RIRs policy changes

I don’t see this as a con. 

Owen