RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Fred,
Organizationally, I agree with your asersion that referencing another document to describe the sub-delegation behavior gives some wiggle room.
-KE
________________________________
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred at cisco.com]
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 6:09 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs at tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router at tools.ietf.org
Subject: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation
Let me make an introductory comment on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation
"Prefix Sub-delegation in a SOHO/SMB Environment", Fred Baker, 27-
Jul-09,
<draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation-00.txt>
In IPv6 Operations, we have two posted documents right now that
comment on prefix subdelegation. These are:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs
"Use Cases and Requirements for an IPv6 CPE Router", Chris Donley,
Deepak
Kharbanda, John Jason Brzozowski, Yiu Lee, Jason Weil, Kirk
Erichsen, Lee
Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2-Jul-09,
<draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00.txt>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router
"IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 25-
Mar-09,
<draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt>
The premise is that an ISP might delegate a PA prefix to a SOHO/SMB
network, perhaps using DHCP or etc. It would be nice if the prefix
could be in turn sliced into /64 prefixes and sub-delegated to the
various LANs in the subsidiary network.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router is trying to recommend to vendors
that they should build CPE routers in a certain way, and specifies in
part how sub-delegation would work. In my opinion as WG chair, I would
rather that it said "do RFC X" than "do the following algorithm", as
one might want to change the algorithm and the proposed algorithm has
not been proven operationally. In general, I would like 6man to take
on the work of describing that algorithm.
I threw draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation together very quickly
for the purpose of saying "I would want you to reference something
like <this>". That said, it is at least a first step, and may be the
right answer for the moment. I would appreciate it if 6man could take
a look at the discussion on sub-delegation in the two CPE drafts and
at this draft, and decide first whether the draft is a reasonable
first step toward solving the problem that the CPE drafts target, and
then further decide whether and with what authors they would like to
finish that discussion. I'm throwing no personal ego in here - if
someone else would like to respond to the question, less work on my
part sounds good to me.
Your opinions, please...
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.