Re: [homenet] [94attendees] IPv6 Prefix delegation on IETF network, please ?

joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2261B3801; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:24:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2vWu7KsFosVT; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E96ED1B3800; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so42277097pac.3; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:24:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q8o1m9OXTZ8ZsNuyvtpbnZsl2EjW2ZNKg+MofHLqkRs=; b=mff3vdB7zAn/46hgVa/IqUxpLk9CT/TNuyXNyAtEwiDewyDZhpihA3Mu1rdj/Pg2Vf pZL8EJBPJOnHYHFI2kM8oDofNryo92c2KwNzM6kKLNIq6eZCiVqh2z78eqYwEvuyLJsn i3wwlajw55n6dOs7tWqVvaOEPl1qNdoDMlRXETUXFF7Pzt0ueDdcTgh/neJv/oil1EgJ zi2RI60Ej2ZFJGP1CA47viQF5rK+O4kCpWzf7WgUERXsyp/MCEG+cqpiKTR73V+a25Ez Sn2OtdTMvstG0NL2ZzsH9N5Jwc7J+8av7WG0Jcf1ycV/S+mAK/T2Zr+wA9vZd2T/aLkP aDyQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.124.232 with SMTP id ml8mr5195049pab.91.1446679443482; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-28-39.meeting.ietf94.jp (dhcp-28-39.meeting.ietf94.jp. [133.93.28.39]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id rx10sm4079046pab.21.2015.11.04.15.24.01 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:24:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
References: <20151102055200.GI31730@cisco.com> <7iio5k5kpz.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <5136.1446543935@dooku.sandelman.ca>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <563A938E.503@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:23:58 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5136.1446543935@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/mOoLPsPvAIosZ5ikQnDRrsM_N78>
Cc: "94attendees@ietf.org" <94attendees@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>, homenet@ietf.org, hackathon@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] [94attendees] IPv6 Prefix delegation on IETF network, please ?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 23:24:05 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/3/15 6:45 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>> However, a number of ISPs (including the IETF, it seems) do not
>> allow prefix delegation.
> 
> No, that's not correct. The IETF NOC team wasn't willing to adjust
> their setup for this event. That doesn't mean that they won't fix
> things for a future meeting.

we have discussed doing it before, it's mostly a question of having
the right pieces in place and tested before hand. we have enough
moving parts this time with new routers that it's maybe not the best
place to be doing that also.

this network with respect to model/deployment looks more like an
interprise or campus build and less like an ISP, it also has to
contend with (in the case of the hotel net extensions) running on top
of third party gear which it doesn't control.

>> Do we ignore the problem
> 
> It's not a problem.

shouldn't be.

> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlY6k44ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrI3wACcDpOLYTZa4OXHiE+GPOjz9/BJ
9gAAnjStwVvWsqD8QIGNpf+IeuFc1Imw
=/3Hs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----