RE: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

We are not even concerned about the draft being a WG work item.  We have
not even completed requirements for the device.  

> no, you cannot use stateless DHCP for prefix delegation.

Also, if you say IA_PD is forbidden by stateless DHCPv6, please point to
a MUST NOT text in any RFC.

> e.g:
> - false: downstream interfaces (loopback, LAN) can run SLAAC or DHCP
IA/PD protocols

The Loopback interface doesn't face the downstream or the upstream.  You
and I both know RFC3633 has no explicit text that prohibits stateless
DHCPv6 asking for IA_PD as I showed how (using the ORO once an interface
has acquired a global IPv6 address). 

> - false: you need a global address on the WAN interface for uRPF

If you don't see the obvious problem with uRPF with just a link-local
address on the WAN interface, I suggest you go do a test and get back to
us.

> - false: loopback interface is required. (it's only purpose is to have
a stable always up management interface).

DSL folks have asked to support the WAN interface acquiring a link-local
address.  So it is the Loopback interface that acquires a global IPv6
address to source packets to the WAN.  If the Loopback interface is not
spawned, then since the LAN interface has global IPv6 address, one could
say, use the LAN interface global address to source packets to the WAN.
But the CPE Router will not even function if the WAN interface has only
link-local and the LAN interface has a global IPv6 address - see section
4 of 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-miyakawa-1plus64s-00.txt


Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: ichiroumakino@gmail.com [mailto:ichiroumakino@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:54 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

Hemant,

> For Iljitsch van Beijnum related to his question on whether IA_PD 
> could be asked of by stateless DHCPv6:
>
> Sorry one correction for this statement in the email below.
>
> "The Loopback interface would need to acquire a global IPv6 address 
> first using stateful DHCPv6 (a MUST, because SLAAC doesn't support 
> getting IA_PD).(a MUST, because SLAAC doesn't support getting IA_PD)."
>
> The Loopback interface may acquire the global IPv6 address using SLAAC

> and not necessarily DHCPv6.  Then since the Loopback interface does 
> have a global address, then I believe it is permissible for stateless 
> DHCPv6 to get IA_PD by specifying the IA_PD option in the ORO?  We 
> need to check if RFC3633 explicitly prohibits asking for IA_PD by 
> stateless DHCPv6? Ole, what say you - thanks?

no, you cannot use stateless DHCP for prefix delegation.

I don't understand where you are going with this draft. this is all over
the map. several people on this mailing list has tried to correct your
misconceptions, but we don't seem to be getting through...

e.g:
- false: downstream interfaces (loopback, LAN) can run SLAAC or DHCP
IA/PD protocols
- false: you need a global address on the WAN interface for uRPF
- false: loopback interface is required. (it's only purpose is to have a
stable always up management interface).

> Anyhow, the problem still remains that we expire the SLAAC address and

> then reassign an address from IA_PD. Same old ugliness.

huh? don't understand this.

I would not support this draft to become a working group document.

/ot