Re: [v6ops] Calling the question: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-03.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: [phone]
===============================================

> On Jan 3, 2016, at 21:16, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Yes, this is all true, but most people still have the impression that DHCPv6 PD is primarily intended for configuring routers or CPE and not hosts. If you read the introduction RFC 3633, it is easy to see why people have that impression.  Even the example you site is related to Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) where Windows is basically acting like a CPE router. I'm not sure what to do about it though, but it probably shouldn't be ignored.
> 
> I added the following text to -04:
> 
>       While [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6
>       PD itself does not require that the client forward IPv6 packets
>       not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that the client
>       be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].
> 
> Better?

Yes, that helps a lot.

A suggestion, use it if you like, I think what you have is sufficient, I just think this would be even better:

   While [RFC3633] refers to the DHCPv6 client is a "requesting router", ....

Also, we should make sure similar clarifying language gets into rfc3315bis which as far as I can tell will incorporate and obsolete RFC3633.

Thanks.
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: [phone]
===============================================