Good evening all, my apologies to the list (the original message doesn't appear to have gone through the first time).
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:25:32 CDT >To: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6 >Hi Alain, > >Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in turn like to >reply (and state that ICMPv6 PD is ANOTHER way to do IPv6 PD, NOT a >replacement for the existing mechanism). FWIW, please see comments in-line: > >>From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 09:12:21 CDT >>To: Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> >>Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6 > >> "Currently proposed solution for IPv6 Prefix Delegation is based on >> DHCPv6 protocol. We believe that in certain network topologies and >> configurations where the CPE routers may not be capable or configured >> to use DHCPv6 and hence can not utilize the currently proposed ipv6 >> prefix delegation procedure. Therefore an alternate ipv6 prefix >> delegation procedure that does not require or depend on the DHCPv6 >> protocol is needed." >> >> >> >>Could you please elaborate on the above rationale for this work? > >Alain, that seems to be a fair question. My first inclination is to direct you >to an e-mail I'd posted to this workgroup about four weeks ago (25Jul06, >0742EST, quoted below): > >"Good morning all. AFAIK, there is currently no defined way (other than via >DHCPv6) to do IPv6 PD. It may well be that between a PE and CE, DHCPv6 is >neither required nor desired, but PD is. > >Over the past twelve months or so there has been some interest in ICMPv6 PD >expressed to me. I'm considering submitting a related draft, and seeking a >co-author. Kindly reply off-line." > >While I welcome your question at the present time, I should say that it would >have also been welcomed when the above referenced mail was first sent. > >> >>Using the DHCPv6 packet format, PD is a 2 packet exchange, >>and nothing forces any implementation to use the rest of the DHCP >>machinery. > >>The argument that CPE or routers do not implement DHCP is weak because >>they do not implement this new mechanism either... > >IPv6 ND, the mechanism upon which our approach is based, is implemented >virtually ubiquitously, if not entirely so. Please see the draft to see what >modifications we propose to accomodate the IPv6 PD requirement using ICMPv6.** > >>So if work need to be done, one could argue that implementing a solution >>based on the DHCPv6 >>packet >>format is faster as the mechanism is already standardized... > >For "one to so argue" would be to do so incorrectly given the above.** > >It is also true that DHCPv6 PD is already standardized (in fact, a full six >months before the standard that defines IPv6 PD requirements in the first >place). > >The argument that "implementing a solution based on the DHCPv6 packet format >is faster...", because DHCPv6 PD is standardized, is false. > >Even if the "mechanism" to which you refer is vanilla DHCPv6, AFAIK there are >NO vendors that implement the entire suite of DHCPv6 abilities. Do you know of >any? > >Further, sometimes customer requirements drive innovation (yes sometimes, it >is the other way around). > >Customer requirements/requests/demands for an alternative (non DHCPv6-based) >IPv6 PD mechanism are on the rise. We (co-authors and I) propose one such way >to do it. > >>Again, they would not have to implement the whole DHCPv6 machinery if they do >>not want to. > >Perhaps you are correct in this instance, though with the ICMPv6 PD based >approach, IPv6 PD could be done without it entirely. > >I implore you to read the draft in its entirety, as I/we do most sincerely >welcome the technical review of our proposed mechanism. > >Best Regards, > >Tim Enos >Rom 8:28 > >> >> - Alain. >> >> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>ipv6@ietf.org >>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------