[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)

[Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>]

Ted

I did, am I missing something? This is a ia_pd for downstream routers,
right? If yes, said routers can have multiple VLANs, for example, so
wouldn't a default /60 work better?

Another question:
A lot of ISPs refuse BCOP-690 and opt for a prefix that changes every 6
hours or 24 etc. How does this handle dynamic prefixes gracefully?

To the authors, I spotted a grammar mistake:
Original:
"Many ISP will assign a prefix larger *then* /64 to the CE Router"

Should be:
"Many ISP will assign a prefix larger *than* /64 to the CE Router"

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/568e07c7199a1a7cdd1bac0abc042b1baf8d95d9?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=c2be466b1dca5450>


On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 at 21:39, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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]
>>>
>>