Only opinion I have is, it seems to makes sense to have the algorithm text worked in 6man.
The network models standard delegation (non-hierarchical) versus advanced delegation (hierarchical) would still reside in a CPE requirements draft right in v6ops? John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Corporation e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com m) 609-377-6594 ========================================= > From: Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:09:20 -0400 > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org> > Cc: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-rou...@tools.ietf.org>, > <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-r...@tools.ietf.org> > Subject: Comments on IPv6 Prefix Subdelegation > > Let me make an introductory comment on: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation > "Prefix Sub-delegation in a SOHO/SMB Environment", Fred Baker, 27- > Jul-09, > <draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation-00.txt> > > In IPv6 Operations, we have two posted documents right now that > comment on prefix subdelegation. These are: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs > "Use Cases and Requirements for an IPv6 CPE Router", Chris Donley, > Deepak > Kharbanda, John Jason Brzozowski, Yiu Lee, Jason Weil, Kirk > Erichsen, Lee > Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2-Jul-09, > <draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00.txt> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router > "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 25- > Mar-09, > <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt> > > The premise is that an ISP might delegate a PA prefix to a SOHO/SMB > network, perhaps using DHCP or etc. It would be nice if the prefix > could be in turn sliced into /64 prefixes and sub-delegated to the > various LANs in the subsidiary network. > > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router is trying to recommend to vendors > that they should build CPE routers in a certain way, and specifies in > part how sub-delegation would work. In my opinion as WG chair, I would > rather that it said "do RFC X" than "do the following algorithm", as > one might want to change the algorithm and the proposed algorithm has > not been proven operationally. In general, I would like 6man to take > on the work of describing that algorithm. > > I threw draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation together very quickly > for the purpose of saying "I would want you to reference something > like <this>". That said, it is at least a first step, and may be the > right answer for the moment. I would appreciate it if 6man could take > a look at the discussion on sub-delegation in the two CPE drafts and > at this draft, and decide first whether the draft is a reasonable > first step toward solving the problem that the CPE drafts target, and > then further decide whether and with what authors they would like to > finish that discussion. I'm throwing no personal ego in here - if > someone else would like to respond to the question, less work on my > part sounds good to me. > > Your opinions, please... > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
