Re: [v6ops] Chair decision on WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 05/11/2023 à 21:51, David Farmer a écrit :
> I support this draft moving forward. The idea of a /64 per host is not 
> new. Architecturally, it is consistent with several other RFCs that 
> effectively provide a /64 per host, including RFC 7278 and RFC 
> 8273. Furthermore, the concept of a /64 per host is already discussed 
> or recommended in several other documents, including RFC 7934, RFC 
> 8504, RFC 8929, and RFC 9099.
>
> The idea of /64 per host is well-established and quite familiar in 
> cellular networks. The idea that it is somehow inappropriate or 
> wasteful in enterprises or other networks is hypocritical.

Except that here we talk 'devices' not hosts, and these devices can be 
routers.

A /64 per router makes an INFORMATIONAL sense, so to say (RFC7278 
"Extending a /64..." is of that Category).

Alex

>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:27 AM Xipengxiao 
> <xipengxiao=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi folks,
>
>     Seeing the hot discussion on
>     draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-02/03/04, the chairs have let
>     the WGLC run longer than originally designated to let people fully
>     express their view.  But the chairs must also make a decision at
>     some point.
>
>     Going through the mails, the chairs counted the following opinions:
>     •       For: Jen L., Lorenzo C., Joel H., Nick B., Erik K., David
>     F., Owen D., Brian C.
>     •       Against: Pascal T., Eduard V., Martin H., Ole T., Gert D.
>
>     It’s clear that there is no clear consensus.  Due to a large
>     number of emails and some people not expressing their For/Against
>     opinion clearly, the chairs may have missed 1-2 opinions. But even
>     if so, “no clear consensus” remains the case.
>
>     In general, the draft is in good shape.  The remaining debate
>     focuses on prefix size.  The chairs would like to point out that
>     there is no need for a draft to solve all problems to pass WGLC -
>     It only needs to solve the problems in the intended scenarios and
>     make no harm in other scenarios.  This draft points out that many
>     existing hosts only support SLAAC with /64 prefixes, and in order
>     not to require changes to such hosts,  /64 or shorter prefixes
>     must be delegated.  This is a practical choice.  For other
>     scenarios where unique /64 (or shorter) prefix per client cannot
>     be afforded, people can choose not to take this approach so this
>     draft makes no harm. With this consideration and acknowledging
>     that it's a "rough consensus", the chairs declare this draft has
>     passed WGLC. Thanks to all the people who provided reviews and
>     comments.
>
>     Ron and XiPeng
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops