Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Barbara,
On 2018-08-30 00:11, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> My understanding, no hats and potentially incorrect, is that any ISP I know of
>> will respond to a DHCPv6 IA_PD with a prefix at least as large as requested,
>> up to /48.
> 
> I don't think this is correct. Of course, any provider using 6rd won't respond to DHCPv6 at all. I'm aware of a lot of 6rd out there.
> Wireless LTE providers don't tend to support DHCPv6, either. The /64 advertised by the RA in an LTE environment is all the LTE UE will get. That includes the case where the LTE UE is supporting a fixed wireless installation.
> For ISPs that support DHCPv6, it may or may not be the case. I've heard several say they do, but I'm not aware of a survey of all ISPs that would tell me how prevalent it is.
> 
> BTW, I disagree with the abstract's statement that the "policy should reflect that assignment of a single subnet is never appropriate." I do not believe this takes into consideration the fact that it would be tremendously expensive for some ISPs to replace their current equipment when those current equipment vendors are being slow about supporting certain features. Cost is always an appropriate consideration. 

I disagree. Yes, of course cost is always a consideration, but that doesn't
make a lower case "should" inappropriate.

> It also does not take into account CE routers that only request a single /64. 

That's irrelevant. The customer might have bought such a router, but the
next customer along might have bought a full homenet-supporting CE.

> I think it's inappropriate for IETF to be trying to dictate what is and isn't "appropriate". Recommending a best current practice is fine. But that's not the same as saying something is "never appropriate".

Let's say "never recommended" then.

   Brian