Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:06:08 +0000

See below.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <[email-masked]> on behalf of Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 13:44
To: v6ops <[email-masked]>
Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

    Hi,
    
    I like the draft. 
    
    Some generally very minor comments:
    
    - Move the ‘Benefits..’ sentence to the end of the abstract.
[jjmb] ok
    
    - "at current time there is a non-trivial UE/subscriber base not supporting DHCPv6 IA_NA” - well, there’s another way to fix that, but… :)  
[jjmb] not relevant, as an operator we need to make sure we support the broadest set of UE implementations.
    
    - s/his/their
[jjmb] ok
    
    - In section 4 you say the UE SHOULD NOT perform stateful DHCP.  What happens if it does? (draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-07 discusses such issues)
[jjmb] this is deployment specific, in the Comcast case Stateful DHCPv6 requests will not be responded to only stateless.  Are you suggesting that we elaborate on this further?  If yes we might tap you for suggestions mainly because we have no plans at this stage to use DHCPv6 for host addressing.  If we enable Stateful DHCPv6 it will only be for DHCPv6 PD.
    
    - RFC 6343, 6180, 6106 and I-D.ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework are in the references, but not the text.
[jjmb] acknowledged, we will clean this up.
    
    Best wishes,
    Tim 

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:42:48 +0000

Hi,

On 14 Nov 2016, at 05:06, Brzozowski, John <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

See below.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Tim Chown <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 13:44
To: v6ops <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

   Hi,

   I like the draft.

I think Lorenzo’s suggestion is good here.

   - s/his/their
[jjmb] ok

Thanks, and understood. Perhaps the abstract should be changed from:

  In some IPv6 environments the need has arisen for hosts to be able to
   utilise a unique IPv6 prefix even though the link or media may be
   shared.  Typically hosts (subscribers) on a shared network, like Wi-
   Fi or Ethernet, will acquire unique IPv6 addresses from a common IPv6
   prefix that is allocated or assigned for use on a specific link.
   Benefits of a unique IPv6 prefix compared to a unique IPv6 address
   from the service provider are going from enhanced subscriber
   management to improved isolation between subscribers.

   In most deployments today IPv6 address assignment from a single IPv6
   prefix on a shared network is done by either using IPv6 stateless
   address auto-configuration (SLAAC) and/or stateful DHCPv6.  While
   this is still viable and operates as designed there are some large
   scale environments where this concept introduces significant
   performance challenges and implications, specifically related to IPv6
   router and neighbor discovery.  This document outlines an approach
   utilising existing IPv6 protocols to allow hosts to be assigned a
   unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a unique IPv6 address from a shared
   IPv6 prefix).

to

  In some IPv6 environments the need has arisen for hosts to be able to
   utilise a unique IPv6 prefix even though the link or media may be
   shared.  Typically hosts (subscribers) on a shared network, like Wi-
   Fi or Ethernet, will acquire unique IPv6 addresses from a common IPv6
   prefix that is allocated or assigned for use on a specific link.

   In most deployments today IPv6 address assignment from a single IPv6
   prefix on a shared network is done by either using IPv6 stateless
   address auto-configuration (SLAAC) and/or stateful DHCPv6.  While
   this is still viable and operates as designed there are some large
   scale environments where this concept introduces significant
   performance challenges and implications, specifically related to IPv6
   router and neighbor discovery. This document thus details

   the mechanics involved for IPv6 SLAAC based address and subscriber
   management to allow hosts to be assigned a unique IPv6 prefix,

   instead of a unique IPv6 address from a shared IPv6 prefix.

   This approach also benefits from enhanced subscriber

   management and improved isolation between subscribers.

to emphasise the scope / focus of this document?

And perhaps in Section 4 add some words to say after the SHOULD NOT
something in brackets to say something like “(and in this model there
would be no responses to any such IA_NA requests)."

Great - overall it’s looking good.

Best wishes,
Tim

   Best wishes,
   Tim

   _______________________________________________
   v6ops mailing list
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:53:14 +0000

Thanks for the text Tim most of it looks pretty good.  I have to take a closer look at the IA_NA specific items, per my earlier email.  We will try to capture the sentiments you outline below.

John
+1-484-962-0060

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 14:42
To: John Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: v6ops <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

Hi,

See below.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Tim Chown <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 13:44
To: v6ops <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

   Hi,

   I like the draft.

   - s/his/their
[jjmb] ok

   IPv6 prefix).

to

Best wishes,
Tim

   Best wishes,
   Tim