Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
> I don't think "Requires DAD: No" is correct. Even if the device gets a /64
> prefix entirely for its own use, it still needs to do DAD with any other
> devices on that /64 (e.g., tethered devices, VMs, etc.).
>
>
>
> I'm not opposed to adding a line to the table, though I don't think it
> provides much value - if we put our mind to it, I'm sure we could come up
> with lots of things we could add to the table that aren't there at the
> moment. My main concern is that if we add something to the table it needs
> to be correct.
>
>
>
> What I mean is “Requires DAD on the interface over which the prefix was
> received”,
>
> but that was too long to fit in the table. Let’s call the interface “A”.
> If the node gets
>
> SLAAC addresses or DHCP IA_NA/IA_TA addresses over interface “A”, then it
> needs
>
> to do DAD on interface “A” for each such address. If the node gets a
> DHCPv6 PD
>
> over interface “A”, however, it does not need to do DAD over interface “A”
> at all.
>
>
>
> If the node assigns the delegated prefix to interface “B”, then you are
> right that
>
> that DAD will be required among all tethered devices, VMs, etc. on
> interface “B”.
>
> But, there will still be no need for DAD on interface “A”. Does that
> clarify?
>

I didn't need clarification, I already knew what you meant. My point is
that:

   - I don't think we can clarify it without overflowing the space in the
   table cell
   - If we clarify it using text outside the table cell, then that means we
   need to explain the other table rows as well, for consistency.
   - That opens us up to fresh discussions on what text to write in those
   explanations, which could potentially become long and involved.
   - It's not clear to me that the above is worth having this extra row in
   the table.

Thus I'd prefer not to an extra row.

> I have a question also on table 1. Under ""Unlimited" endpoints", why does
> it say "no" for DHCPv6 PD? I think it should say "yes" instead, since a
> prefix
> obtained by DHCPv6 PD can be used to configure an unlimited number of
> addresses on the link over which the prefix was received.
>
>
>
> The table is written from the perspective of the network assigning
> addresses to devices that connect to it. Therefore, it says "no" because if
> you use DHCPv6 PD you can't assign address space to an unlimited number of
> endpoints - you are limited to however many /64s you have available.
>
>
>
> If you use IA_NA or SLAAC, any network with a /64 subnet has, at least in
> theory, an "unlimited" number of addresses to assign to clients. Of course,
> that's only true in theory. In practice, there's going to be a limit due to
> scaling reasons.
>
>
>
> I don’t understand this. True that SLAAC and DHCPv6 IA_NA/IA_TA can be used
>
> to assign an unlimited number of addresses to interface “A”. But, so can
> DHCPv6
>
> PD. When the node receives the delegated prefix (e.g., a /64), it can
> assign as
>
> many unique IPv6 addresses as it likes to interface “A”. And again, it
> need not
>
> do DAD for any of them.
>

I think you're confusing unlimited addresses with unlimited endpoints. With
IA_NA or SLAAC, you can number billions of endpoints, each of which might
only have a few addresses. With DHCPv6 PD, you can only number as many
endpoints as you have /64s. Each of those endpoints might be using an
unlimited number of addresses, but there is still a limited number of them.