[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,

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.

>
>