Good evening all, my apologies to the list (the original message doesn't appear
to have gone through the first time).
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:25:32 CDT
>To: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Hi Alain,
>
>Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in turn like to
>reply (and state that ICMPv6 PD is ANOTHER way to do IPv6 PD, NOT a
>replacement for the existing mechanism). FWIW, please see comments in-line:
>
>>From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 09:12:21 CDT
>>To: Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> IETF IPv6 Mailing List <[email protected]>
>>Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
>> "Currently proposed solution for IPv6 Prefix Delegation is based on
>> DHCPv6 protocol. We believe that in certain network topologies and
>> configurations where the CPE routers may not be capable or configured
>> to use DHCPv6 and hence can not utilize the currently proposed ipv6
>> prefix delegation procedure. Therefore an alternate ipv6 prefix
>> delegation procedure that does not require or depend on the DHCPv6
>> protocol is needed."
>>
>>
>>
>>Could you please elaborate on the above rationale for this work?
>
>Alain, that seems to be a fair question. My first inclination is to direct you
>to an e-mail I'd posted to this workgroup about four weeks ago (25Jul06,
>0742EST, quoted below):
>
>"Good morning all. AFAIK, there is currently no defined way (other than via
>DHCPv6) to do IPv6 PD. It may well be that between a PE and CE, DHCPv6 is
>neither required nor desired, but PD is.
>
>Over the past twelve months or so there has been some interest in ICMPv6 PD
>expressed to me. I'm considering submitting a related draft, and seeking a
>co-author. Kindly reply off-line."
>
>While I welcome your question at the present time, I should say that it would
>have also been welcomed when the above referenced mail was first sent.
>
>>
>>Using the DHCPv6 packet format, PD is a 2 packet exchange,
>>and nothing forces any implementation to use the rest of the DHCP
>>machinery.
>
>>The argument that CPE or routers do not implement DHCP is weak because
>>they do not implement this new mechanism either...
>
>IPv6 ND, the mechanism upon which our approach is based, is implemented
>virtually ubiquitously, if not entirely so. Please see the draft to see what
>modifications we propose to accomodate the IPv6 PD requirement using ICMPv6.**
>
>>So if work need to be done, one could argue that implementing a solution
>>based on the DHCPv6
>>packet
>>format is faster as the mechanism is already standardized...
>
>For "one to so argue" would be to do so incorrectly given the above.**
>
>It is also true that DHCPv6 PD is already standardized (in fact, a full six
>months before the standard that defines IPv6 PD requirements in the first
>place).
>
>The argument that "implementing a solution based on the DHCPv6 packet format
>is faster...", because DHCPv6 PD is standardized, is false.
>
>Even if the "mechanism" to which you refer is vanilla DHCPv6, AFAIK there are
>NO vendors that implement the entire suite of DHCPv6 abilities. Do you know of
>any?
>
>Further, sometimes customer requirements drive innovation (yes sometimes, it
>is the other way around).
>
>Customer requirements/requests/demands for an alternative (non DHCPv6-based)
>IPv6 PD mechanism are on the rise. We (co-authors and I) propose one such way
>to do it.
>
>>Again, they would not have to implement the whole DHCPv6 machinery if they do
>>not want to.
>
>Perhaps you are correct in this instance, though with the ICMPv6 PD based
>approach, IPv6 PD could be done without it entirely.
>
>I implore you to read the draft in its entirety, as I/we do most sincerely
>welcome the technical review of our proposed mechanism.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Tim Enos
>Rom 8:28
>
>>
>> - Alain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
