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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
