Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,

> The way I understood the comment was that the draft needs more supporting
> text on the rationale for doing what the document describes (e.g., the benefit
> for not having to place the upstream interface in promiscuous mode, efficiencies
> for not doing link-scoped multicasting over the upstream interface, avoiding
> disturbance of other nodes on the upstream link, etc.
> 
> I did not think the comment was asking to expand the document to cover all
> methods of conveying a /64 to the host (e.g., unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host,
> 3GPP, etc.). This document only concerns methods that meet the description
> of prefix delegation as described for examples such as DHCPv6 PD.
> 
> FWIW my comment at the mike was asking for the latter as well. There are many ways that a host can get a dedicated prefix, and we should provide guidance on what a host should do in this situation. Also if we look at current deployments, way more hosts get dedicated prefixes via RAs then via PD: all 3GPP networks provide a dedicated prefix, and very few hosts implement DHCPv6 prefix delegation. So focusing on DHCPv6 PD is focusing on a niche use case.

The "dedicated" prefix over 3GPP networks is not something that you can generalise right?
It is a property implied by that particular link-layer.

Cheers,
Ole