IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 03 September 2020 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C31A3A0E49; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 03:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 87dZB2AvA3bu; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 03:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561273A0E41; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 03:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2121:289:8796:192a:fca4:177a:257e] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:289:8796:192a:fca4:177a:257e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 050A94E11A6F; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:14:29 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 12:14:26 +0200
Message-Id: <7BD7A9B8-B370-4799-8864-F71FF1A0DB04@employees.org>
References: <3EB77F8F-C229-47CC-833D-C4B127701B10@delong.com>
Cc: Dale Worley <worley@ariadne.com>, last-call@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3EB77F8F-C229-47CC-833D-C4B127701B10@delong.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/AhF2RMVFgqWmCkSM3EWOe9C7UOE>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:14:32 -0000


> On 3 Sep 2020, at 11:03, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 
> A network which does not support SLAAC will likely not have PIOs in its RAs.
> If a PIO is present, its sole purpose is to provide information about a
> prefix which may be considered by SLAAC (though the PIO may indicate that the
> prefix in question should NOT be used for address generation).

Just wanted to correct this misunderstanding. The PIO is used for on-link determination and would therefore typically be present, independently of SLAAC being enabled for the prefix or not. 

Cheers 
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email