IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Continuing WGLC: ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 11 October 2023 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 C6C85C14F73E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 03:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=employees.org
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 Wv_tqxDzlHVC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 03:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [204.87.183.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A1BC14E513 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 03:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9DC6CE501F; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:59:38 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=9DgWBICK2XuXbNXQ Ue2cUBovCn6zOLGAN2zYe9akzU0=; b=FXvg2BoRP8o23fwEdQThpCMt7k6QNTJb eQkElIkdFeIzPH5NCj11Jg/NpAZyFduCXvEMVcsakXOViFDZk1v/y+6fatiOHSiM qeFx6rE60vg1ctQGMMRMn0XdHZz1lX4kdMIY4AQsExuW7e2vzvLrNiOzTIrquQtm +6tk7q7qOKJ38fmQJmDvuBrkzsFYKpfuPoMCiA+KJMYTpE6o1IC9QL69odb+tszw txBgn6FU68MHu7M+gmzvtrTltFHh5hX2mjrEZnSLak1Yz5c9aSi4jlGfewPaf4gr Llbw4WxJxBR0E07VM9gFR1SLE4ObN7Go3M/4g2bjqxkTEFDYaR0DnQ==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 78673E1C43; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:59:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:4650:c3ed:37a:1107:65f5:fd7e:6b6d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D6204E1301E; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:59:18 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.100.2.1.4\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQXQ=AbbtQZ1srTgUtz54FFgyQdX9uUKds2yUAgYY7tCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:59:07 +0200
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21CABDA0-2B72-4568-A273-DDB36631AC4B@employees.org>
References: <169660647031.23597.13067349132781805398@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BATORG5sruy19XMAXsfvqumOB7wL=G1EbNo-zUrtzoddNg@mail.gmail.com> <2AE8C0BD-4290-45B2-82A6-7DE89BBD6EAD@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr1Dyk_aRbGkOAVfL9az_4yM1wTFTFD88YbTmniscgpYoQ@mail.gmail.com> <A0E43256-9E6D-471D-854C-6F2C6D71CEF3@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr2gy5dBcUf-6=+7MC9kXchtm14POUSck+Gxz++D-7-myg@mail.gmail.com> <6BCFB0B4-2C37-4A9F-9437-FAA60E8A784E@employees.org> <CAFU7BAQXQ=AbbtQZ1srTgUtz54FFgyQdX9uUKds2yUAgYY7tCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.100.2.1.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bYO_SoZkMebUBQV4p5E_utpY4yQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Continuing WGLC: ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:59:43 -0000

>> This document should be in sync with (and probably should reference the stub router document.
>> At least there should be text explaining the two models. Flat and hierarchical. And that the network needs to support both.
> 
> I think it's not possible to support an arbitrary number of clients
> with an arbitrary number of networks (flat or hierarchical) behind
> them (unless we have truly unlimited resources). I believe the goal of
> this draft is to document what can be expected to work and what is a
> "nice to have" extras.

Hierarchical approach: A large enough prefix to number all of the downstream links with a /64
Flat approach: A separate IA_PD each link requesting a /64.

What should we recommend the extending node to do? And what should we recommend the network to do with those requests?

There’s quite a lot of complexity involved for the EN figuring out what to do. E.g. it asks for a /60 in a single IA_PD, but then gets only a /64 back… or it asks for 4 /64s in 4 IA_PDs and gets an error status code for 3 of them…

So could we come up with some general recommendations for both network and extending node?
I would be happy to say that the recommendation is to give a single /64 to each EN.
But there are consequences regarding further sub-dividing that /64 to downstream networks.
What thinks?

Cheers,
Ole

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status