IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 BCP 'Host Address Avaialability' and DHCPv6-PD (was: Implementation Status of PREF64)

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 12 October 2021 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B240B3A1196 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 01:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j4DAk86_2glW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 01:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC6463A1194 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 01:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19C8f0js014406 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:41:00 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C64A2205F6B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF2D205F5A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 19C8f0wD004532 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:41:00 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <DDA36020-90CC-471B-83AD-3D98950F1164@delong.com> <08D2885E-B824-48E8-9703-DCA98771FA37@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2EVsY3tYUf56R0Q1+KVrowtqh-HgwXj5vxzy4wd-vkTg@mail.gmail.com> <1A6ED87B-666E-439C-852F-2E5C904C0515@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr23fY2DJDvB-9eVFRsxnBnZQ0kZuZfYUfRUHYW=_D=enA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1z0q0R61x7iY+Wg_cFRU0jmqr+fR0y=bSXxj+K-n722w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1T_mXfxJGHOrBfqZfexm6GTrUqnFi57710pTroKQK6uQ@mail.gmail.com> <702CB018-1A02-4B32-B9AA-7C7B31521F12@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr0jZR8Efzr_Y6FeiBvHYS8ATmDupx2ABTXXy-rSA_QjmA@mail.gmail.com> <1adb70a8-db0a-4ea6-f721-c1035343cda3@foobar.org> <DM6PR02MB69249D4F0A8003E77EC9F153C3B19@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <E1FED93B-674C-46DD-8C39-F6C30475C48A@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr34jv_N0jGKdg=sG76oGU7PdRjYFC_-w9Uvzs=7oGm38w@mail.gmail.com> <E6316781-AC7D-438F-B216-75B1DF9217DC@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr10OKMJ1y8bs5xpt6jS8ZWsqs66oFCXmp-QLySS5Yn4hg@mail.gmail.com> <5DF8D1AE-4B54-429F-962A-488F2AA1F895@delong.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad4269f4-7992-eb2f-fa94-d14ffb9005b2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:41:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5DF8D1AE-4B54-429F-962A-488F2AA1F895@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KmkAuzMBBwPpvAfT1Qe3cK4LOmg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 BCP 'Host Address Avaialability' and DHCPv6-PD (was: Implementation Status of PREF64)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:41:08 -0000

>> On Oct 10, 2021, at 23:12 , Lorenzo Colitti
[...]
>> IA_PD, even by itself without IA_NA, has none of the concerns in 
>> this [other] thread. RFC 7934 explicitly recommends it [DHCPv6
>> Prefix Delegation], actually.

I tend to disagree, and I was so disagreeing since the editing of the
respective Internet Draft.

The way RFC7934 is formulated does not so explicitely recommend DHCPv6-PD.

RFC7934 has a text that says 'can':
> Multiple IPv6 addresses can be provided in the following ways: [a
> 3rd bullet is DHCPv6-PD]

In the section 8 "Recommendations", the DHCPv6-PD is a MAY:
> The prefix MAY be provided using DHCPv6 PD, SLAAC with per-device 
> VLANs, or any other means.

Generally speaking, the use of terms 'MAY', 'can', and similar
formulations about possibilities are not real recommendations.  They are 
ways to fend off discussions and pretend to describe compromises.

A real recommendation is capitalized, like in 'it is RECOMMENDED'.  Such 
a formulation is absent from this BCP RFC7934.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email