[v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

From: Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09
To: Tim Chown <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>, IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
Hi Tim,


On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:24 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53
To: Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [v6ops] Correction: Re: Working group Last call: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
I support the draft going forward.

I do have one comment on the scope of the document. I believe that it should also cover use of PD for a locally assigned ULA prefix. Please don't turn this into another endless ULA thread - but if the CE has assigned a ULA prefix, and supports PD for a GUA prefix, it should also support PD for the ULA prefix.

This seems reasonable.

Should /64 be hard coded in the document, or should it refer to a prefix of the length required to support SLAAC as currently defined?
I'm concerned this will cause confusion amongst the CE Router community if I don't put an actual number.  If you really want we can 64 is based on the prefix length of SLAAC as currently defined.  How strong do you feel about this?

Not strongly, but the WG has of late been trying not to unnecessarily hard code the 64 into documents. If 64 is used, then a short statement as to why would be good.


The pd-per-device draft uses /64 in an example and says “Note that the prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because that is the prefix length currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise required by the proposed deployment model” and says a little more on /64 in section 8 which also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64 isn’t “hard coded” in there, in that its use in the example is clearly explained.
Minor nit – the “addresses” at the end of para 1 of the intro should probably say “prefixes”.
thanks, fixed in -03.

Best wishes,
Tim

Tim


(There are several grammatical nits in the Introduction. I'll send them to the author off-list.)

Regards
     Brian Carpenter

On 07-Aug-24 03:18, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> All,
>
> This message begins the working group last call for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd. Please read the draft and send your comments in response to this email.
>
> The draft can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/>
>
> nb
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>