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

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:27:11PM +0000, Xipengxiao wrote:
> 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.

I do consider this actively harmful.  It establishes a "each host gets
a /64" as best practice, disguising as "because existing hosts do not
know other ways" (they do not know how to do DHCPv6-PD in the first place,
so this is a very weak statement).

The point of having 128 bit is not to throw half of it away.

The effect of this will be endless discussions in address policy fora, 
pointing at this draft, requesting larger assignments - which is one
of the things IPv6 set out to do away with, people receiving address
blocks from their ISP that suddenly turn out as "too small".

Well done.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279