The authors of this draft would like to have some discussions even before the INTAREA WG meeting in two weeks. Especially on the major change about connection sharing (tethering) where the authors spent several hours on it.
See all differences in: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03.txt The section 3.4.3 is about “Connection Sharing by the Host” and currently is: ------- start -------- The situation when a host shares connectivity from an upstream interface (e.g. cellular) to a downstream interface (e.g. WiFi) is known as 'tethering'. Techniques such as ND-proxy [RFC4389<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4389>], 64share [RFC7278<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278>] or prefix delegation (e.g. using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3633>]) may be used for that purpose. Whenever the RAs received from the upstream interface contain a PVD RA option, hosts that are sharing connectivity SHOULD include a PVD Option within the RAs sent downstream with: The same PVD-ID FQDN. The same H-bit, Delay and Sequence Number values. The L bit set whenever the host is sharing IPv4 connectivity received from the same upstream interface. The bits from the Reserved field set to 0. The values of the R-bit, Router Advertisement message header and Options field depend on whether the connectivity should be shared only with PvD aware hosts or not (see Section 3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-03#section-3.2>). In particular, all options received within the upstream PvD option and included in the downstream RA SHOULD be included in the downstream PvD option. ---- end ---- Comments are welcome before, during and after the WG meeting -éric for all authors
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
