Re: [v6ops] IA_PD bit in RA (was: RFC7084)

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:22 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Le 12/12/2013 20:05, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>>> (should the RA provide the delegated prefix as well to compare favorably
>>> to the PMIP example? but again this is the 'what if' branch, deviating
>>> from the main CPE discussion)
>> 
>> I don’t think anyone really wants to move PD into RA. I think that would
>> be inappropriate, personally.
>> 
>> Without moving the PD functionality into RA, then, I would say that the
>> current situation is fine.
>> 
>> CPE should ask for PD if it wants a prefix.
>> It should deal with one of five possible results in response:
>> 
>> 1.No response
> 
> As one senses it, implementing it is not easy.
> 
> How would one implement the decision 'no response' other than waiting for one a certain amount of time?  That wait is what makes people think it takes too long, especially mobile people.

Treat it as no response until you get one. Really, what are you going to do differently after you get denied a prefix (assuming a model of active denial like you suggest) than you can do while you’re waiting and haven’t yet received a prefix?

Either way, you have nothing to delegate to your subordinate networks.

> 
> Alex
> 
>> 2.Denial
>> 3.Requested prefix size granted
>> 4.Longer prefix (smaller net block) granted
>> 5.Shorter prefix (larger net block) granted
>> 
>> Nobody has yet made a good case for why this behavior is problematic.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>