RE: [dhcwg] Unnecessary restriction in DHCP-PD?

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

Folks,

We never liked the Unnumbered model that was asked to be put in our CPE
Rtr draft.  Well, after this discussion a nail in the coffin for the
Unnumbered model has been found.  Due to this totally valid restriction
in the DHCP-PD RFC3633, we need to remove the Unnumbered model from the
CPE rtr draft.  The reason is because in the Unnumbered model, an IPv6
address from the IA-PD was used for the source of upstream traffic to
the Service Provider.   Any comments?

Thanks.

Hemant & Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:42 AM
To: David W. Hankins
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Unnecessary restriction in DHCP-PD?

Hi David,
   Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline.

David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 06:36:12PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>   I read Ole's mail on v6ops as well, but I still do not see the 
>> technical problem. I am running this setup currently and I am not
seeing any issues.
>> To narrow down my question, "what exactly breaks when we do this?"
> 
> It is an administrative question, not so much a technical one.

Ack. I think this might be a good explanation for this restriction.

> 
> The PD client is a client, not representing the network administrator,

> on the upstream-facing interface.  It is inappropriate to make changes

> to the network's management.  If the network wished to give the client

> additional addresses on that segment, the RA PIOs and/or IA_NA would 
> already reflect that.
> 
> Having a delegated prefix does not grant the right to manage the 
> upstream's network.
> 
> 
> Note however that if the PD client was operating as a DHCPv6 server on

> its upstream facing interface as well as advertising the delegated 
> prefixes there, a recursion error would be present; a client on the 
> upstream side may acheive a prefix delegation from a PD client on the 
> same link, which in turn is a client of the upstream network, and so 
> on.

This was not my intent (to re-advertize the prefix upstream) but to just
use a configured address. I realize now that pursuing this might be more
trouble than it is worth. I am probably better off getting a DHCPv6
address or a SLAAC configured address on the upstream interface.

Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg