RE: Call for v6ops agenda items

[<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>]

Hi,

> Oooooops. That's embarassing: for some reason I assumed your protocol
> was
> an extension of Router Advertisements.

Probably due "stateless"-wording. Maybe the "automatic prefix delegation" would have been better naming after all, but then again, dhcpv6 pd is also "automatic"...:)

> Do I read it correctly now in that you plan to extend DHCPv6 and/or
> IPv6CP?

Right.

> Could you make it clearer what exact protocols can carry your extension
> and how they interact with it?

Yes, I'll keep that in mind.

> What I still worry about is a wholly different aspect of SPD:
> 
> Pseudo-stateful PD requires you to implement the calculation of
> prefixes
> exactly once on the AC (DR) - even if it misinterprets some standard in
> the calculation it will probably still work - the clients (RR) do not
> care
> how their prefix was calculated, they just use it. As long as the RR
> works
> with any single other implementation of DHCP server it will probably
> work
> with almost all of them.

I was assuming working code, but that is a very good real-life consideration, thank you. I will add that as well as a risk, in addition to easier policy control if DR has all the intelligence. 
 
> I do not want to seem unnecessarily gloomy, but I suspect high support
> costs are on the way if more than one way of calculation is supported
> and
> if there is the slightest chance of misinterpreting the standard.

With the stateless proposal one aim I have is to have as cheap and easily deployable solution as possible available, which would help to ensure prefix delegation is available for nodes as often as possible (so that ND proxy etc would be needed less often)..

Best regards,

Teemu