Re: [v6ops] Continuing WGLC: ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03

Hi Jen,

Thanks for updating the document, it now looks a lot better.

A couple of comments:

For this paragraph:
"* The server MUST provide a prefix short enough for the client to
extend the network to at least one interface, and allow nodes on
that interface to obtain addresses via SLAAC.”

I think section 8 is enough and that this could be deleted.
It’s regardlessly an operational choice.
Alternatively say something like:
“If SLAAC is {needed, required, used}, the server MUST provide a prefix short enough…”

Garbage collection is going to be a challenge in this solution.
Regardless of deployment you will have a fairly small number space, that can easily be exhausted.

The only way you can deal with that is by using short lease timers, right?
Would it be worth providing some guidelines regarding that? At least describe the problem?

Cheers,
Ole

> On 6 Oct 2023, at 17:48, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear v6ops WG,
> 
> We have just submitted the -03 version for
> ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device - thank you very much to everyone who
> provided feedback!
> Please review and let us know if the draft is ready to progress.
> 
> The main changes:
> - Introduction is rewritten (much shorter and, hopefully, more clear)
> - some text about multiple addresses use cases moved to Appendix.
> - The Applicability and Limitation section is moved up, so it's in the
> beginning - hopefully it would help the readers to understand what
> scenarios are in scope and what are not.
> - Client Mobility section added to discuss what happens when a client
> moves between network attachment points.
> - the draft is now explicit that it focuses on "a pool per link"
> scenario, which also drastically simplifies the routing and relay
> requirements (the routing section is updated as well).
> - the draft now suggests Active Leasequery as one of the mechanisms to
> keep the relay state in sync with the server.
> - The Prefix Consideration section has been updated and states that
> the endpoints are not required to use SLAAC - it's just the network
> allows them to do that, if they need to.
> - various changes to address other comments received during the WGLC so far.
> 
> I'd like to ask everyone who has expressed concerns during this WGLC
> (you are in Cc: - hopefully I didn't miss anyone) to review the new
> version and let the author know if you still have concerns.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:35 AM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt is now available. It
>> is a work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>   Title:   Using DHCPv6-PD to Allocate Unique IPv6 Prefix per Client in Large Broadcast Networks
>>   Authors: Lorenzo Colitti
>>            Jen Linkova
>>            Xiao Ma
>>   Name:    draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt
>>   Pages:   18
>>   Dates:   2023-10-06
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> 
>>   This document discusses an IPv6 deployment scenario when individual
>>   clients connected to large broadcast networks (such as enterprise
>>   networks or public Wi-Fi networks) are allocated unique prefixes via
>>   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD).
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device/
>> 
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.html
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> 