Re: [Casm] prefix assignment

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 29 March 2017 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8ED127BA3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsKGJZS7LrWD; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07D812704B; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F60C203B7; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:40:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029BD636E0; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: casm@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, homenet@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <a34d8ff0-b2d1-b74c-2fd7-00e269b834ed@gmail.com>
References: <21984.1490644275@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CANMVOuzYpcBdG2ZOhEXRnQU0Q=_i0i-09SPKzruJnznVoWW=OA@mail.gmail.com> <9240.1490649148@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <672bec4c-0e93-362c-21bf-99938cd0a066@gmail.com> <27800.1490654163@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <27680a33-708d-84b7-f378-3a47ee71840a@gmail.com> <2491.1490716597@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5a41375c-2a4c-d5ca-e703-06d8e76f8728@gmail.com> <28218.1490799848@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <a34d8ff0-b2d1-b74c-2fd7-00e269b834ed@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:16:28 -0400
Message-ID: <14579.1490818588@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/pmtCC1cH1AWfOD-G3Hq6iT5m3yI>
Subject: Re: [Casm] prefix assignment
X-BeenThere: casm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Coordinated Address Space Management <casm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/casm/>
List-Post: <mailto:casm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:16:31 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Where you want to plug in an ASA (autonomic service agent) is anywhere
    > you want plug in some intelligence to govern an automatic process.
    > Intelligence, for example, to figure out what to do if the user side
    > asks for a /48 and the ISP offers a /60. So the ASA might negotiate
    > a compromise at /56 and then PD does its thing. But we didn't want
    > to exclude a scenario where PD isn't available, hence a flag is
    > included.

To put this is pseudo-(monty)pythonesq:

Customer: Hi, I'd like to buy a parrot.
Store: Would you like a Blue Parrot or a Red Parrot?
Customer: I'd like a Blue Parrot.
Store: I'm sorry, but we don't sell Parrots.

I just don't see the point of the ASA here.

If DHCPv6-PD isn't available, then it's not a compliant ISP connection
(RFC7204) and it's outside of the scope of homenet to begin with.

    > About the domain boundary:

    >> I don't think that the ISP can trust to have code controlled by end users
    >> running in their ACP domain.

    > Right. But in ISP-provided CEs this could presumably be fixed, because
    > that code would be locked down. In a store-bought CE, isn't this exactly
    > where BRSKI will help us? There is certainly an issue for home-made CE
    > images, but they will be a tiny minority of users.

No, BRSKI doesn't help the ISP feel safe that the code I am running
on my store-bought CE won't attempt to mess with their network.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-