IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum

otroan@employees.org Mon, 06 April 2020 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 8F50F3A0408 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 05:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 gdFkL3UDbHSi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 05:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 451F63A05AC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 05:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (76.84-234-131.customer.lyse.net [84.234.131.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 508124E11B13; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 12:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B421D314AA23; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB63485C37CC3ADCF87CB8BC9CAECB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:57:05 +0200
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0652C40-6CC0-4530-AA56-AA488C60746F@employees.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB63485C37CC3ADCF87CB8BC9CAECB0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Nwr3TUOo9OGQOmYB22xjmzDDpmA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
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: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:02:31 -0000

> This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.
>  
> Please submit comments by April 13, 2020.

0) Remove the reference to the individual draft in introduction.

1) the document proposes a workaround for the case where the service provider does not renumber the network correctly.
It would be useful to add a paragraph in the introduction describing the "correct" procedure. This to ensure that a reader would not be confused and think this is how the DHCP PD mechanism is intended to work.
I don't think there is a reference for that, I'm not sure we have written down the correct DHCP PD behaviour when doing instant renumbering?
Something like: "A network provider that has to renumber a customer network, must continue to include the old prefix in DHCP PD messages with lifetimes set to 0 for a while, to ensure that stale prefix information can be expired on hosts attached to the network".

2) Rewrite the document as an update to RFC7084. Make the new requirements as WPD-<nn>

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email