Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all

Le 19/11/2020 à 14:51, otroan@employees.org a écrit :
>> That solves one problem but does not solve the 64share v2 issue as
>> we have to still modify RFC 4861 for mobile to accept shorter
>> prefix.
> 
> As Lorenzo explained during the meeting reusing the PIO isn't going
> to work.
> 
> You would need a new option. It would likely be useful for the
> requesting router to indicate interest in the option. Even hinting at
> what prefix size it was expecting.

Ole,

Are you referring to Lorenzo's explanation in order to suggest the use
of a new option in order to explain that DHCPv6-PD could be such an option?

Or are you suggesting a new option in order to explain that a new option
in RA, like a bit flag, might be appropriate?

Do you think that an operator might be interested in implementing a new
option in RA at the 3GPP gateway? (I am asking because an operator said
'no' to that question, and another operator said they'd prefer to just
modify a parm in conf file - 64share-V2; maybe you see that differently).

For information, a maintainer of stack implementation in linux kernel
asks what is the level of 'IETF consensus' of the proposed new option in
RA to kernel implementation.    This is an Individual Submission.  And I
dont know how to move forward.

Alex

> Now can you explain to me again the reasons why this approach is
> better than using the existing DHPCv6 protocol packets?
> 
> Best regards, Ole 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso