Thanks for the pointer, the slides are very interesting indeed...
I totally agree this is an important topic which should be discussed on this list. IMO, the three mechanisms have different approaches and assets (for instance, APD takes routing into consideration, DHCPv6+PD can provide precious DNS information...), so it is perhaps better, instead of choosing one mechanism or the other to reach a consensus on what we think is necessary to provide ISP-to-Customer(PE-to-CPE) prefix delegation leading to a zeroconfiguration environment as pointed out by Toshi-san.
Moreover, in this aim, both stateful and stateless solutions could be considered, as pointed out by Jim, and could be discussed as the needs are indeed not the same.
To bring a little more to the discussion and lay stress on the fact that prefix delegation is a important topic, here's another kind of prefix delegation we can encounter. Though this is outside this list's work, I think it is interesting to point that, for instance, RFC 3053 about "IPv6 tunnel broker" provides a way an ISP could use to delegate prefixes to its IPv4-only-connected clients :
Quick quote : "Moreover, if the client machine is an IPv6 router willing to provide
connectivity to several IPv6 hosts, the client should be asked also
to provide some information about the amount of IPv6 addresses
required. This allows the TB to allocate the client an IPv6 prefix
that fits its needs instead of a single IPv6 address."
Yoann
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Yamasaki Toshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : lundi 11 mars 2002 15:05
À : Bound, Jim
Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: PPP and Global Addresses
Jim and all,
> Differentiate the need for an Intranet vs an Internet.
> Most DHC is deployed on Intranets. Ralph has responded to you and I
> concur.
I guess we are talking about "what is the best for ISP-to-Customer
(PE-to-CPE) prefix delegation", correct?
Then, there seems three proposals shown below for this purpose. What is your
opinion for each proposed mechanism?
(APD) draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02.txt
(DHCPv6+PD option) draft-troan-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-00.txt
(RA+PD option) draft-lutchann-ipv6-delegate-option-00.txt
I believe everyone here agrees that zero-configuration environment is very
important for the deployment of IPv6, because we know IPv6 should realize an
world where not only technical people but also much more non-technical
people can enjoy the global address and always-on environment.
To achieve zero-configuration for "ISP-to-Customer (PE-to-CPE) prefix
delegation", we had better have a global consensus about which mechanism is
minimally required for this purpose. Many mechnisms for the same purpose
will make it difficult to achieve zero-configuration enviroment, because CPE
should know which to use before runnning an auto-configuration protocol
among many choices.
My opinion is:
(APD) a good choice for a minimamlly required protocol for prefix delegation
(DHCPv6+PD option) for those who want to more auto-configured parameters
other than site-prefix
(RA+PD option) can be used at only P-to-P enviroment and it is too
restrictive
P.S.
Here is an ppt presentation about the "temporally" conclusion of IPv6
engineers mostly in Japan about this issue.
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/13/sigs/docs/4.3_OSG_UNI.ppt
It's a little old because there were no DHCPv6 nor RA proposals for prefix
delegation when we discussed, but comments and opinions are very welcome.
---Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
