Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:04:34 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dhc
Message-ID	<23757.1703631874@localhost>

Daryll Swer <[email protected]> wrote:
    > In a service provider network, we definitely don't care what host or
    > anything else that's happens beyond the customer router, regardless if it's
    > enterprise or residential. Our legal liability stops at customer KYC,
    > meaning, if my router gives them a /56 or /48 PD, and this PD information
    > is logged via AAA/RADIUS, that's enough for an SP to comply with the
    > law.

Yes, but it still might not solve the problem of "printing is broken"

    > However, you're right that there are some enterprises that use stock random
    > CPEs for branches etc. And this is where we'll run into problems. If there
    > are say n number of hierarchical routers, that are doing exactly what

There are many hosted service providers where it's a top to bottom service,
and they actually need to know all the details of what happens in each
"store"

(at the ISPs I've worked for in the previous decade: we had drug stores,
supermarkets, shoe stores and optical stores.  We had several hundred of
each, all on fiber with DSL backup.  We pushed v6 wherever we could, but too
many PoS systems were... PoS..  [haha] However, we could/did easily have
overridden a local default about reporting)

    > I'm still not clear overall, how the configuration of this addr-info on
    > server side would look like, while I understand the M flag, should my link
    > prefix /64 still be "autonomous" or not though?

which server?


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)