Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

On 16/12/2017 09:20, Ole Troan wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Sure, but we have learnt that the matter of route injection is a thorny problem. 
> If you do not topologically restrict the problem, how do you solve it? Among separate administrative domains.

Agreed. It can get very tricky. I just prefer the language in the draft
not to be restrictive.

   Brian

> 
> Ole
> 
>> On 15 Dec 2017, at bu20:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/12/2017 02:21, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>>> Please review and send any new comments to the list, and please confirm whether
>>>>> earlier comments have been addressed.
>>>>
>>>> It continue to describe the entity delegating the prefix as a "Delegating Router 'D'". The IPAM (IP address Management, and by extension IP Prefix Management) software can be implemented in a computer sold as a router, but there is no requirement that it be, and it usually is not. As a matter of fact, if a router is a system that forwards messages directed to addresses other than its own, in the context of an application such as a DHCPv6 address/prefix management process, it is acting as a host, not a router.
>>>
>>> Prefix delegation, more so than address assignment is coupled with the routing system.
>>> Which is why RFC3633 only described a model where the delegating router and requesting router was directly connected.
>>
>> They're coupled, but it isn't logically required that the entity that gives
>> prefix P to a device is also the upstream router that will include P in an
>> aggregate. I agree that's a natural implementation, but it isn't the only one.
>> IPAMs and their generalisation in CASM, and draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management,
>> are alternatives.
>>
>> So I agree - it is a false assumption that the prefix delegator is
>> a router, and that the delegation mechanism is RFC3633.
>>
>> As far as the draft goes, I'd like to see this qualified:
>>
>> "An example IPv6 PD service is the Dynamic Host
>> Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315][RFC3633].  An
>> alternative service based solely on IPv6 ND messaging has also
>> been proposed [I-D.pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit]."
>>
>> Maybe by adding that other, non-router, mechanisms may exist,
>> such as proprietary IPAMs, draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management
>> and draft-sun-casm-address-pool-management-yang (expired).
>>
>>   Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 