[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 Daryll,
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 7:29 PM Daryll Swer <contact=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I’m currently struggling with a CE router that receives a /48 from the
> ISP and, whatever an inner router requests via IA_PD, this device always
> delegates /57.
>
> Can you share more details about the make/model of this router that does
> this /57 delegation by default? I've typically, taken the ISP's ia_pd, and
> then manually put it into pools, where a downstream client, can request, so
> for example, I get a /48, put it into a pool, and then each unique VLAN
> downstream can get a /60 or /56 via ia_pd with the DHCPv6 server running
> directly on the CE.
>
This is the current PD length that several DOCSIS operators use in the
North America.  I'm not aware of it being documented anywhere, but it seems
to be "common" practice.

>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com
> <https://mailtrack.io/l/a696d9c0cc74ff3993981c8199a51589b9b7260c?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=1d721c58c64433e2>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 at 03:03, Michael Breuer <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Ted,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up.
>>
>> I’m currently struggling with a CE router that receives a /48 from the
>> ISP and, whatever an inner router requests via IA_PD, this device always
>> delegates /57.
>>
>> Coming from this example to the more general. In my experience, CE router
>> makers do a lot of weird things and, for the better of the Internet, they
>> really need precise and good guidance.
>>
>> So, whatever the WG thinks is the right prefix length, the document
>> should give explicit guidance on the prefix length.
>>
>> > On 5. Aug 2024, at 20:30, 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>