[v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: Is the P flag even necessary? M flag already does enough (Re: Re: A detail review of draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-04)

[Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

How about this:

OLD:
LPD-8: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA prefixes
with a prefix-length of 64.

New:
LPD-8: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD provision IA_PD prefixes with a
prefix-length of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the
user.

I'll make this change in the next revision.

~Tim
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:49 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What I’m saying is that the text is ambiguous because you don’t say what
> “by default” means. I am one of the people who wants to get rid of the
> hierarchical model.
>
> Op di 6 aug 2024 om 09:05 schreef Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>
>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 2:30 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:16 AM Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> v6ops has a draft for PD on the LAN to improve this situation.
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/
>>>>
>>>> Please feel free to send comments, we are about to do WGLC on it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, Tim. I hadn't read the document in a while. I see this text in the
>>> last requirement:
>>>
>>> The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA prefixes with a
>>> prefix-length of 64.
>>>
>>> I read this as "if the DHCP client doesn't specify a narrower prefix,
>>> the CE router SHOULD .. 64"
>>>
>>> Is that what you intended? If not, I think you need to say more. If that
>>> is what you intended, this won't work, because if we stack CE routers, I
>>> expect every CE router to ask for a /48, rather than not specifying, and
>>> that would mean that we'd always delegate the narrowest remaining subset of
>>> the outer CE router's delegation to the first inner router that makes a
>>> request.
>>>
>> That's what the working group wanted.  The original version of this
>> document had more text about how to support hierarchical or flat models.
>> After a round or two discussion what came out of that was routers behind a
>> CE Router are no longer a CE Router as they aren't at the customer edge.
>>  The draft reflects that general consensus, that leans towards deploying a
>> flat model as opposed to hierarchical, which is where the /64 length
>> derives from.
>>
>> I think it may be time for another document to specify what to do if
>> you're a Internal Router (but not SNAC).  We could include all the flat
>> model text for becoming a DHCP Relay and giving out IA_PD with /64 from the
>> customer edge.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>