Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06.txt

Hi Fred,

Thank for writing this up.

Is the only difference from doing 3633 directly, that you allow addresses from P on the interface connecting R and D?
Then the rest of the text is there to deal with that special case.

A simpler solution both to specify and to implement would just be to go with 3633 and state that addresses from P must be on a separate interface.

For the special case, you don't say anything about address resolution.
I don't see the value in supporting redirects. You already have to inject this prefix into the routing system.
(setting isRouter to True).

Replace talk of WAN link / LAN link. This usage of PD differs from 3633, in that it would typically be done within a single AS right?

Cheers,
Ole

> On 5 Sep 2017, at 23:27, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, here is a draft that is very closely related to RFC7934 and 'unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host'.
> It described the options available for a node that receives a unique prefix delegation from
> the network in terms of routing and multi-addressing considerations. It is of direct interest
> to this community.
> 
> I have given my time and energies to contribute to the aforementioned v6ops docs and
> would appreciate input from the working group on my document. Please see below for
> abstract and URLs.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:16 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
>        Title           : IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts
>        Author          : Fred L. Templin
> 	Filename        : draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06.txt
> 	Pages           : 10
> 	Date            : 2017-09-05
> 
> Abstract:
>   IPv6 prefixes are typically delegated to requesting routers which
>   then use them to number their downstream-attached links and networks.
>   This document considers both this traditional case, and the case when
>   the "requesting router" is actually a simple host which receives a
>   delegated prefix that it can use for its own internal multi-
>   addressing purposes.  This latter method can be employed in a wide
>   variety of use cases to allow ample address availability without
>   impacting link performance.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-06.txt

Attachment: signature.asc