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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Hemant, 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:31 AM
>To: Suresh Krishnan; IPv6 Operations
>Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Unnecessary restriction in DHCP-PD?
>
>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?

If the CPE router assigns an address from the IA-PD prefix
on an interface *other than* the one that connects the CPE
to the provider, it can use that address for the source of
upstream traffic.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>
>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
>
>