Subject: RE: PPP and Global Addresses

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:03:57 -0500

Francis,

>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    But I don't really care about your opinion or others on 
> what should be
>    used or not used from the work we do in the IETF.
> 
> => I disagree: the resources of IETF are not infinite so waste is
> a common concern.

We are talking about use not a standard.  Thats none of the IETFs
business formally.
We have enough work in the formal IETF charter work load, at least I do.

Plus the only resources used for "use" are those who ship products and
the network operators that use them.

> 
>    What I care about is if you find a technical hole or error in our
>    protocol specifications or interoperablity issues.
>    
> => I'd like to see any of the security concerns of
> draft-prigent-dhcpv6-threats-00.txt addressed, or
> a proof that "the capability of automatic allocation of
> reusable network addresses" has a meaning for IPv6 addresses
> (note that we have 5 years of proof of the opposite).

Differentiate the need for an Intranet vs an Internet.
Most DHC is deployed on Intranets.  Ralph has responded to you and I
concur.

/jim

> 
> Regards
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Yamasaki Toshi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:05:28 +0900

Jim and all,

> Most DHC is deployed on Intranets.  Ralph has responded to you and I

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