IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F2812969D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:27:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 al-ule-7-0kl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C4E1293EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #127) id m1chE2S-0000ETC; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:27:52 +0100
Message-Id: <m1chE2S-0000ETC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:55:16 -0500 ." <C14767E5-2948-444B-9E8A-7CE5072F9413@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:27:51 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/60XcWUvZlnH2ffv1iz9OCjfd250>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:27:56 -0000

>IPv4 has no equivalent to RAs, so the workaround is to infer prefix assignment
> from address assignment.

Technically that's not quite correct:
RFC-950 defines a subnet mask request/reply.
And RFC 1256 defines router advertisements

Subnet mask ICMPs were never popular. I think some popular implementation
tended to give a wrong reply.

Router advertisements were somewhat popular. But got out of fashion when
DHCP became the standard way of obtaining configuration.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email