[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)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

You should read the document, which explains why not /60. :)

Short answer: /64 is less likely to waste prefixes and has no obvious
downside.

Op di 6 aug 2024 om 12:04 schreef Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>

> Why not:
>
> LPD-8: The IPv6 CE Router MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a
> prefix-length of *60* unless configured to different prefix-length by the
> user.
>
> Assuming, we want to force CPEs (in turn forcing ISPs) vendors to
> normalise BCOP-690 (/56 ia_pd minimum for home networks).
>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com
> <https://mailtrack.io/l/1be637bce3a03573f0aba79c5b508ea9c46d50f0?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=9e0cfb1d70527150>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 at 21:04, Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> I almost made that modification and can't think of a great reason not to.
>>
>> 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 MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a
>> prefix-length of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the
>> user.
>>
>> ~Tim
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:32 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, much better. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Why SHOULD and not MUST?  What is the case where they would not do this?
>>>
>>> Op di 6 aug 2024 om 11:26 schreef 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>
>
>> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>