Re: [v6ops] Chair decision on WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

I support this draft moving forward. The idea of a /64 per host is not new.
Architecturally, it is consistent with several other RFCs that
effectively provide a /64 per host, including RFC 7278 and RFC
8273. Furthermore, the concept of a /64 per host is already discussed or
recommended in several other documents, including RFC 7934, RFC 8504, RFC
8929, and RFC 9099.

The idea of /64 per host is well-established and quite familiar in
cellular networks. The idea that it is somehow inappropriate or wasteful in
enterprises or other networks is hypocritical.

Thanks.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:27 AM Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Seeing the hot discussion on draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-02/03/04,
> the chairs have let the WGLC run longer than originally designated to let
> people fully express their view.  But the chairs must also make a decision
> at some point.
>
> Going through the mails, the chairs counted the following opinions:
> •       For: Jen L., Lorenzo C., Joel H., Nick B., Erik K., David F., Owen
> D., Brian C.
> •       Against: Pascal T., Eduard V., Martin H., Ole T., Gert D.
>
> It’s clear that there is no clear consensus.  Due to a large number of
> emails and some people not expressing their For/Against opinion clearly,
> the chairs may have missed 1-2 opinions. But even if so, “no clear
> consensus” remains the case.
>
> In general, the draft is in good shape.  The remaining debate focuses on
> prefix size.  The chairs would like to point out that there is no need for
> a draft to solve all problems to pass WGLC - It only needs to solve the
> problems in the intended scenarios and make no harm in other scenarios.
> This draft points out that many existing hosts only support SLAAC with /64
> prefixes, and in order not to require changes to such hosts,  /64 or
> shorter prefixes must be delegated.  This is a practical choice.  For other
> scenarios where unique /64 (or shorter) prefix per client cannot be
> afforded, people can choose not to take this approach so this draft makes
> no harm.  With this consideration and acknowledging that it's a "rough
> consensus", the chairs declare this draft has passed WGLC.  Thanks to all
> the people who provided reviews and comments.
>
> Ron and XiPeng
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================