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

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

I have one text addition suggestion and one question. On P. 7, in Table 1,
suggest adding a new final row as follows:

  requires DAD               Yes                  Yes                   No                 N/A 

Meaning that multi-addresses configured by SLAAC or DHCPv6 IA_NA/IA_TA
must use DAD to check for duplicates on the link they were obtained. In a
multi-addressing environment where millions of addresses are required,
this could amount to a substantial amount of DAD multicast traffic. On the
other hand, DAD is not needed for DHCPv6 PD because the network has
unambiguously delegated the prefix for the node's exclusive use.

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.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 9:16 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
> 
> In the discussion this morning, we wound up in a position that I could not call "consensus", even "rough consensus", but per a hum of
> those in the room, within shouting distance of achieving that. Several people spoke at the mike asking for a sentence or brief
> discussion to be added, or a section clarified.
> 
> In the interest of expediency, let me ask those who spoke (and anyone else that has an issue) to respond to this note (copying the
> list) with suggested text. It might be best if this is stated as
> 
> OLD TEXT
> the text that should be replaced goes here
> NEW TEXT
> the text that should replace it goes here
> 
> or
> 
> LOCATION
> identify the section the text should go into
> PROPOSED TEXT
> the text that should be added goes here
> 
> I'll permit the authors to declare suggested text out of scope; some of the discussion this morning left them commenting on scope
> and scope creep. However, I do ask them to justify the exclusion to the list, rather than just ignore the email.
> 
> This comment period ends 15 November.