Re: Comments on draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-01.txt

["Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org>]

Hemant,

> For Iljitsch van Beijnum related to his question on whether IA_PD could
> be asked of by stateless DHCPv6:
>
> Sorry one correction for this statement in the email below.
>
> "The Loopback interface would need to acquire a global IPv6 address
> first using stateful DHCPv6 (a MUST, because SLAAC doesn't support
> getting IA_PD).(a MUST, because SLAAC doesn't support getting IA_PD)."
>
> The Loopback interface may acquire the global IPv6 address using SLAAC
> and not necessarily DHCPv6.  Then since the Loopback interface does have
> a global address, then I believe it is permissible for stateless DHCPv6
> to get IA_PD by specifying the IA_PD option in the ORO?  We need to
> check if RFC3633 explicitly prohibits asking for IA_PD by stateless
> DHCPv6? Ole, what say you - thanks?

no, you cannot use stateless DHCP for prefix delegation.

I don't understand where you are going with this draft. this is all
over the map. several people on this mailing list has tried to correct
your misconceptions, but we don't seem to be getting through...

e.g:
- false: downstream interfaces (loopback, LAN) can run SLAAC or DHCP
IA/PD protocols
- false: you need a global address on the WAN interface for uRPF
- false: loopback interface is required. (it's only purpose is to have
a stable always up management interface).

> Anyhow, the problem still remains that we expire the SLAAC address and
> then reassign an address from IA_PD. Same old ugliness.

huh? don't understand this.

I would not support this draft to become a working group document.

/ot