[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]>]

> I’m currently struggling with a CE router that receives a /48 from the
ISP and, whatever an inner router requests via IA_PD, this device always
delegates /57.

Can you share more details about the make/model of this router that does
this /57 delegation by default? I've typically, taken the ISP's ia_pd, and
then manually put it into pools, where a downstream client, can request, so
for example, I get a /48, put it into a pool, and then each unique VLAN
downstream can get a /60 or /56 via ia_pd with the DHCPv6 server running
directly on the CE.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/a696d9c0cc74ff3993981c8199a51589b9b7260c?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=1d721c58c64433e2>


On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 at 03:03, Michael Breuer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hey Ted,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up.
>
> I’m currently struggling with a CE router that receives a /48 from the ISP
> and, whatever an inner router requests via IA_PD, this device always
> delegates /57.
>
> Coming from this example to the more general. In my experience, CE router
> makers do a lot of weird things and, for the better of the Internet, they
> really need precise and good guidance.
>
> So, whatever the WG thinks is the right prefix length, the document should
> give explicit guidance on the prefix length.
>
> > On 5. Aug 2024, at 20:30, 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>