Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC

+1

This purpose here is to describe a work around to a limitation, not to specify how RAs/DHCPv6 are supposed to be generally used and what options are present in them. I don't think RA or DHCPv6 options that aren't essential or useful to this *specific* scenario should be mentioned at all. DNS in RAs is not special to or necessary to sharing a /64.

Generally related to DHCPv6 option passing across a CE device (of which this would be one), I posted the following draft a while ago. I'd be interested in comments.

"IPv6 CE Device DHCPv6 Option Transparency"

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency-00

>________________________________
> From: Teemu Savolainen <tsavo.stds@gmail.com>
>To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org> 
>Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013 4:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC
> 
>
>
>IMHO it is better to keep this draft focused solely on address sharing, and not to go to other configuration topic or other possible problems.
>
>Btw most often, as of now, the "original" DNS server addresses are received via link layer signaling (see http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-06.txt section 2.10), and thus, for example, may need to be added to "proxied" RA.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Teemu
>
>________________________________
> From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>Sent: ‎15.‎9.‎2013 23:20
>To: v6ops@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC
>
>Just a quick question...
>
>I don't see any reference of DNS servers under 3.1, only MTU & Prefix.
>Shouldn't there be a bullet showing that DNS info (UE address as DNS proxy, or original through-RA/DHCPv6 DNS servers) should also pass on the LAN link?
>
>--
>Tassos
>
>Fred Baker wrote on 15/9/2013 21:00:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share.  Please read it now. If you find nits
>> (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the
>> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a
>> statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed,
>> please post your comments to the list.
>>
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
>> comment to make.
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>