Return-Path: X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074BFC151088 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 00:30:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sR7XUiFKpPBS for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 00:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2144CC14F61A for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 00:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2cf11b91813so1413452a91.1 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:30:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723188636; x=1723793436; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=98EjjTDLY/+uQTJKWmaI5NAzbjNl3Q3T4YcwwIAsAak=; b=CCQHXKz+1E0rmNsLVKn5CaiA/aIaj+C4JcByPVkKxD7voy8mAkERNGOJhaaAOW9ybR u7Bw9okazwL2qINhiT/Ny0TvUuj6wqWiuhTg2WGs+xXa56Ij1KEO/ZvxM5vDY6cUl+uX /GKCUNseZgrQWK7iMWV/+jGtayd46bNjQO5EL8yB6l9soDtr/tljkPvBGJhAIPZ08My2 lG8sIZEjnQFxARvhcbjJs/y4GYq9Z8ysglIWRkb5fpe6gFdRkDdn7pxL8N+xDitkltgt 9GADjj13ptw4Q/+v/ctrPxu8RjoiiC5eU3ygU7WMn4TqYuRXQ47/BwVDuac6HgYugVjS 9iSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723188636; x=1723793436; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=98EjjTDLY/+uQTJKWmaI5NAzbjNl3Q3T4YcwwIAsAak=; b=GWLRpZV63L84BKUowDwkWt6f5vjOC3mjDkKX2moixBYLHJFbmsjGNxXwX7v78LEdFx rbIZJERBKxM+qB33tW1NWDek/UyXX94PPiresGJMH3LjlgDun1Cf+R8EKw0hIOhZvi3C n5bNKH2/JIRhz1nwcezXGH/v6elxvcTxFhKhS/m5ghYHMOmGCPeSub6lcAS9qu9KI2Rf XZjEzTq6lQ7U5WifToiCigZrfFow1sW28kpVQIxseaWi+h8oKAvzUkcoWJigiWyXMajc xqxGcj5WAgs7yhLp0D0e7vXumVFJdeGiYvCY2IIjLS0rBdtJNKxsRSH4bQLdxLfgYbO0 iGqA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWe2DVf428VrBslifadYa9YG0ubdfO2j7qsno/SGkFID4aN9GujzeJkfDmvIARVE9XLYClmGyo9oSeQYI4+Og== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzlPXQAZAUHvFSCkfb3rEQXTcjbOzYCOqWzMEy/uucvcVAlAYpj UAkIm63L8a4HDQtCe2Gy2J5nZshETzszS+4djwMt925V/RxaF380n7dJJ1esYVAzUplv5iWFzpk UC+FE3FHZrpq75AE0noKpGdetp8c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHvIV7iQ9uezSuLljmIqHRfb9rbvNuMw0DexN0haTfJjjPz0jW7rAq1MwKvHxWgeJx6cWvfxmZsv8Gdsx4xq/4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b88:b0:2c8:6a9d:5060 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2d1e7f99fa3mr618717a91.7.1723188636375; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:30:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <172306305735.252.5586801355147827297@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k> In-Reply-To: From: Mark Smith Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 17:30:09 +1000 Message-ID: To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d6350061f3b1e23" Message-ID-Hash: KBG6OX4SWM2LA4E3HBB4NAXOO7I33PWV X-Message-ID-Hash: KBG6OX4SWM2LA4E3HBB4NAXOO7I33PWV X-MailFrom: markzzzsmith@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: v6ops list X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_I-D_Action=3A_draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03=2Et?= =?utf-8?q?xt?= List-Id: v6ops discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000008d6350061f3b1e23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, 12:20 Ted Lemon, wrote: > What=E2=80=99s the downside? :) > The concern I have is that I've seen obscure individual customer faults float around inside residential help desks for a number of weeks being looked at by different people, rather than being escalated to network engineering as soon as they should be. Eventually it might get escalated, or the customer leaves through frustration. For ISPs that aren't willing to give out large prefixes e.g., /60s, having the CPE ask for additional PD space when it runs out would at least show up in DHCPv6 PD server logs. That network engineering can directly look for that, and it would be absolute evidence of what problem the individual customer is suffering from. It would also be direct evidence to the ISP that they're not handing out big enough prefixes to customers. If an ISP isn't going to honor an IA_PD request for a /48, which I think would be unlikely for ISPs who aren't already handing out /48s, then I don't think this ID specifying to always ask for /48s is going to achieve anything. It won't signal to network engineering that customers are running out of address space because it will hide that customers are running out. Regards, Mark. > Op do 8 aug 2024 om 14:36 schreef Timothy Winters > >> Ted, >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:28=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon wrot= e: >> >>> I think it's fine to try to get more prefixes if you don't get the >>> amount you asked for the first time, by adding IA_PDs with different IA= IDs >>> to subsequent requests. However, we should always ask for a /48. How do= es >>> the CPE router know how many prefixes it will be asked to provide? If t= he >>> ISP doesn't want to provide a /48, it will provide a smaller allocation= , >>> and that's perfectly fine. >>> >> I was toying with that idea as well. Just asking for /48. >> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:23=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters = wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:06=E2=80=AFPM Mark Smith >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for the late comments, I seem to be missing IETF ID >>>>> announcements and WGLCs (I think trying to read everything out of my >>>>> Inbox might not be working). >>>>> >>>>> I don't think logging a system management error for the below >>>>> situation is good enough in a residential environment: >>>>> >>>>> "LPD-2: >>>>> The IPv6 CE Router MUST assign a prefix from the delegated prefix as >>>>> specified by L-2 [RFC7084]. If not enough addresses are available the >>>>> IPv6 CE Router SHOULD log a system management error." >>>>> >>>>> Non-technical residential end-users are very unlikely to look up >>>>> system error logs if they have a fault, they'll call their ISP's help >>>>> desk straight away - their ISP is their first port of call for any an= d >>>>> all faults that look to be Internet faults. >>>>> >>>> In this case I was thinking for the ISP to know that they have routers >>>> that want to give out IA_PD >>>> on the LAN and they aren't giving a prefix large enough. >>>> >>>> In my experience of residential help desk staff looking up or asking >>>>> customers to look up system logs for error messages isn't a practice >>>>> either - and if you look at logs of some of these devices they're ver= y >>>>> chatty so spotting error messages is time consuming, which is counter >>>>> to a common helpdesk KPI of customer calls answered per hour. >>>>> >>>>> I also think in some cases CPE don't expose system logs - from memory= , >>>>> Google's Nest CE routers don't have a system log available. >>>>> >>>> I was thinking about getting system logs from CWMP/USP/NETCONF from th= e >>>> ISP. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be better if engineering were somehow directly notified of a >>>>> customer running out of prefixes and ideally could provide more >>>>> prefixes automatically. The IA_PD Prefix-Length Hint mechanism would >>>>> do that. >>>>> >>>> I'd had discussions with many ISPs, and only a handful of environments >>>> with the DHCPv6 server >>>> honor prefix hints. Most ISPs for planning purposes have a number and >>>> that's what they send. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I'd suggest updating LPD-2 to: >>>>> >>>>> "LPD-2: >>>>> The IPv6 CE Router MUST assign a prefix from the delegated prefix as >>>>> specified by L-2 [RFC7084]. If not enough prefixes are available the >>>>> IPv6 CE Router MUST request the number of required additional >>>>> prefixes, rounded up to the next shortest prefix length bit boundary, >>>>> via an additional IA_PD option through the Prefix-Length Hint >>>>> mechanism [RFC8168]. The second or subsequent IA_PD options are used >>>>> to avoid a renumbering event where the initial and now too-small >>>>> Prefix-Delegation prefix would be entirely replaced with a new and >>>>> single larger Prefix-Delegation prefix. The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD log >>>>> a system management error." >>>>> >>>> For this solution, I have some questions. >>>> >>>> Are you proposing that subsequent DHCPv6 messages (Renew, Rebind) ask >>>> for additional IA_PDs, beyond what is currently leased? >>>> >>>> OR are you proposing that the CE Router change what it's asking DHCPv6 >>>> Solicit or Request? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not entirely convinced that "request the number of required >>>>> additional prefixes, rounded up to the next shortest prefix length bi= t >>>>> boundary" is the right amount of address space the CE should request. >>>>> Perhaps a simpler mechanism would be to request an additional PD >>>>> Prefix that is the same size as the initial PD prefix provided by the >>>>> ISP. >>>>> >>>> I like this idea the best. I think this has the highest chance of >>>> success, that the DHCPv6 Server is >>>> configured to give out one size. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (I understand above is complex to provision and manage on the DHCPv6 >>>>> server side and IPv6 addressing side, however that's the price of >>>>> treating IPv6 address space as if it was scarce rather than abundant. >>>>> My advice to residential ISPs is to give out /48s. APNIC had no issue= s >>>>> with giving an ISP I worked for a few years ago enough address space >>>>> for us to give all of our 500K residential customers /48s.) >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mark. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 06:39, wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03.txt is now available. >>>>> It is a >>>>> > work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF. >>>>> > >>>>> > Title: IPv6 CE Routers LAN Prefix Delegation >>>>> > Author: Timothy Winters >>>>> > Name: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03.txt >>>>> > Pages: 7 >>>>> > Dates: 2024-08-07 >>>>> > >>>>> > Abstract: >>>>> > >>>>> > This document defines requirements for IPv6 CE Routers to suppor= t >>>>> > DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for redistributing any unused prefix(es= ) >>>>> > that were delegated to the IPv6 CE Router. This document update= s >>>>> RFC >>>>> > 7084. >>>>> > >>>>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: >>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ >>>>> > >>>>> > There is also an HTMLized version available at: >>>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-0= 3 >>>>> > >>>>> > A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> > >>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-= pd-03 >>>>> > >>>>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: >>>>> > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>> --0000000000008d6350061f3b1e23 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, 12:20 Ted Lemo= n, <mellon@fugue.c= om> wrote:
What=E2=80=99s the downside? =C2=A0:)

The concern I ha= ve is that I've seen obscure individual customer faults float around in= side residential help desks for a number of weeks being looked at by differ= ent people, rather than being escalated to network engineering as soon as t= hey should be. Eventually it might get escalated, or the customer leaves th= rough frustration.

For I= SPs that aren't willing to give out large prefixes e.g., /60s, having t= he CPE ask for additional PD space when it runs out would at least show up = in DHCPv6 PD server logs. That network engineering can directly look for th= at, and it would be absolute evidence of what problem the individual custom= er is suffering from. It would also be direct evidence to the ISP that they= 're not handing out big enough prefixes to customers.

If an ISP isn't going to honor an IA_PD request fo= r a /48, which I think would be unlikely for ISPs who aren't already ha= nding out /48s, then I don't think this ID specifying to always ask for= /48s is going to achieve anything. It won't signal to network engineer= ing that customers are running out of address space because it will hide th= at customers are running out.

Regards,
M= ark.



Op do 8 aug 2024 om 14:36 schreef = Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Ted,

On = Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:28=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wr= ote:
I think it's fine to try to get more prefixes if you don't ge= t the amount you asked for the first time, by adding IA_PDs with different = IAIDs to subsequent requests. However, we should always ask for a /48. How = does the CPE router know how many prefixes it will be asked to provide? If = the ISP doesn't want to provide a /48, it will provide a smaller alloca= tion, and that's perfectly fine.
I was toying wi= th that idea as well.=C2=A0 Just asking for /48.=C2=A0

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:23=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe= .com> wrote:
Hi Mark,

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:06= =E2=80=AFPM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Apologies for the late comments, I seem to be missing IETF ID
announcements and WGLCs (I think trying to read everything out of my
Inbox might not be working).

I don't think logging a system management error for the below
situation is good enough in a residential environment:

"LPD-2:
The IPv6 CE Router MUST assign a prefix from the delegated prefix as
specified by L-2 [RFC7084]. If not enough addresses are available the
IPv6 CE Router SHOULD log a system management error."

Non-technical residential end-users are very unlikely to look up
system error logs if they have a fault, they'll call their ISP's he= lp
desk straight away - their ISP is their first port of call for any and
all faults that look to be Internet faults.
In this ca= se I was thinking for the ISP to know that they have routers that want to g= ive out IA_PD=C2=A0
on the LAN and they aren't giving a prefi= x large enough.

In my experience of residential help desk staff looking up or asking
customers to look up system logs for error messages isn't a practice either - and if you look at logs of some of these devices they're very<= br> chatty so spotting error messages is time consuming, which is counter
to a common helpdesk KPI of customer calls answered per hour.

I also think in some cases CPE don't expose system logs - from memory,<= br> Google's Nest CE routers don't have a system log available.
I was thinking about getting system logs from CWMP/USP/NETCON= F from the ISP.=C2=A0

I'm not entirely convinced that "request the number of required additional prefixes, rounded up to the next shortest prefix length bit
boundary" is the right amount of address space the CE should request.<= br> Perhaps a simpler mechanism would be to request an additional PD
Prefix that is the same size as the initial PD prefix provided by the
ISP.
I like this idea the best.=C2=A0 I think this has= the highest=C2=A0chance of success, that the DHCPv6 Server is=C2=A0
<= div>configured to give out one size.

(I understand above is complex to provision and manage on the DHCPv6
server side and IPv6 addressing side, however that's the price of
treating IPv6 address space as if it was scarce rather than abundant.
My advice to residential ISPs is to give out /48s. APNIC had no issues
with giving an ISP I worked for a few years ago enough address space
for us to give all of our 500K residential customers /48s.)

Regards,
Mark.





On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 06:39, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wro= te:
>
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03.txt is now available. It= is a
> work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0IPv6 CE Routers LAN Prefix Delegation<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Author:=C2=A0 Timothy Winters
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03.txt
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A07
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Dates:=C2=A0 =C2=A02024-08-07
>
> Abstract:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 This document defines requirements for IPv6 CE Routers to= support
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for redistributing any unused pr= efix(es)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 that were delegated to the IPv6 CE Router.=C2=A0 This doc= ument updates RFC
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 7084.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.iet= f.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatrac= ker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://au= thor-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-03
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
--0000000000008d6350061f3b1e23--