Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

It would need standardization. But why not?
Despite that the proposed solution is all about "local code", it is a big change anyway.
A little more change, a little less -> it does not matter.

Let's think about what could be the value of additional singling in both directions.

Keep in mind that with the proposed solution, we could have situations:
1. Only routers support it
2. Only some hosts support it
3. All routers and some hosts support it
4. All nodes support the new solution

If hosts would not receive signaling that routers support the new solution (flag?),
then hosts could save messages for DHCP requests to non-supportive routers.
This signaling would become redundant (flag wasted) after all routers would support the new solution.

If the router would not receive the information from some host that it supports the new solution (new option?),
Then the router needs to reserve a separate /64 for SLAAC (for outdated hosts) and announce PIO for the such host.
It could not save /64 prefix because the router should have this prefix reserved by the administrator upfront anyway.
It has a small value to save on PIO announcements but RA would be needed anyway to show "default router status".
In the future, this optimization would happen automatically because the admin would not provide the prefix for SLAAC.

Conclusion (IMHO):
1. not very valuable standardization (not much to save, temporary savings), but possible.
2. in both cases it is not good that the other side makes the conclusion not on the presence of the signal but on the absence.
It would look ridiculous in the far future after the Enterprise market transition (after people would forget what was SLAAC).
They would be asking: why we are sending these flag (from the router) and option (from the host)?

Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 7:19 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>; V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt



> On Dec 15, 2022, at 6:23 AM, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1.	What is the point to keep SLAAC if DHCP infrastructure is mandatory? 

What I might suggest is to make SLAAC normal (as s the current case, e.g., retaining backward compatibility) and provide a way to tell hosts that they should request a prefix via DHCP-PD.