>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:01:10 +0900 (JST), >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> | Here is the first cut at an agenda for the IPv6 working group session at > | the Paris IETF. Please review and send us comments, deletions, and > additions. > Could you please give me a few minutes for following draft? > Title: Distributing Default Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6 > Filename: draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt-00.txt > As a result of a discussion at last IETF dhc wg, I need ipv6 wg > support to move forward this draft. I've read the latest draft, but I'm afraid the document itself doesn't help assess whether the ipv6 wg can support that or not, since it mainly concentrates on the DHCPv6 specific issues. I believe what should be discussed in this group is the intended scenarios (the "Practical Usage" section) described in this URL: > As I posted before, this draft describes the RFC3484 policy table > distribution (please refer http://www.nttv6.net/dass). I've read this page, too. My current impression is that "I see some point, but I'm not sure if it's enough for introducing a new DHCPv6 option". Specifically, > Case1: IPv4 or IPv6 Prioritization I see this is a case where the automatic policy distribution may help. But since the address selection by RFC3484 is much more powerful than just selection between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't think this can be a convincing usage if this is the only meaningful case. > Case2: ULA or Global Prioritization > Case3: Multicast Source Address Selection For these cases, using a non default policy table could resolve the issue (and automatic policy distribution would help), but I personally think this should be rather dealt with through a clarification for the "default" selection rule, with the fact that site-local unicast addresses were deprecated and ULAs are introduced. > Case4: Global and Closed Mixed Connectivity This may look a valid use case superficially, but people will actually wonder why ISP2 needs (or can have) global (non ULA) addresses, or even any IPv6 addresses, to begin with, if it's not connected to the global Internet. And, for example, if the closed network uses ULAs and we clarify the "default" address selection policy, we'll be just happy with the clarified default policy (we may also need the new '/54' allocation policy as well, though). Or, if ISP2 just uses private IPv4 addresses, we'll just be happy even with the current default rules. Unless the usage example answers to this natural question, I'm afraid this will look artificial (and thus cannot be convincing). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
