Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sat, 31 December 2016 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 4D9C51294A2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 3VMIdH5oCgaH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECF2C129473 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE29D86 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:50:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VbDF7gHBO0TR for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:50:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD8BD54 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:50:30 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id q13so213962771vkd.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cxQY6finjDigMfqWiwnB2PV5JFZ/55NEsrTnxP44pso=; b=iIdckior5LkauUg8JggktaJ/HQHPIrH2fNx2x7O+RGk3DNq8Amy1++lv8KWxALREqD TaZSYBe7P6alWzzxi237d/mI2UVeeGda9gJN6chfbKPESndfmNlG61v4S3TFCKt7rwUq SqFGV+7248z2DNfy/nJ8rhYXlQDCn/Zq0dWGjcD6E7uZ36KTsfEtlRrJG1u0jvfh1fBU 8y9IgTgAc+PzWHuNogymS1Q8uH4Z4LznIkM/MbqgfwoFDd1N0kF8doWY/M18iF4yGpGk +PLlGAejflV/v6S74YMncfmCbx3lVtmf5HmiroikWaxNyoWaUd03x1HANfYEpc/kR78y +tgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cxQY6finjDigMfqWiwnB2PV5JFZ/55NEsrTnxP44pso=; b=hza5Nxv9UOgFPPg/LTbSIHlsIWnxXXkss6rFFNAmFBgL/WL7DLU6+/KkaHgTK5i5sh McjRpoUIs1PaxLlSMIRVZFgZEcrHaXMtZG6AtoVdK+hkZWwYUNL318KEoNwj6IYH9ABe MBwS4c+jh40RhqgzXDZNV/QnGflrOHotWMC3yXl0ECpyWcA0GhE5PkiMrLlU+7IDRy0H l3tim2FtSP4oQEGUgOF6Au/UnWigDHwKiB4xCjq9HlWXZfACDCycqI0p6qZnsZeuKxcK Dl+sufP3jv1ovwDaXhnrKUlVvDNuWGI45c0ckFP4rs1g/sTboz5aHIjUUEJho/FHLDdt ZlZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLkXtjrFWtz0upSYKgAPVmRFk6/EVri4Dm3ER31MWMOGDXCrjJp+xnKAoKsB3/sr3CJ/P3r3ZE2Z0j7zEcMVvlqx8f5zRXhRm8/zPIbAAxHcgnlGJuml3/uK88IGrDW7q1+nT+6/8lKPfk=
X-Received: by 10.31.242.74 with SMTP id q71mr18385617vkh.46.1483213830196; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.242.74 with SMTP id q71mr18385612vkh.46.1483213830034; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.98.131 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:50:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2h95k4qx9.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <HE1PR04MB14492A6FA01B592B6DD69093BD920@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <7F96C4EC-B762-4A2C-AF7E-20D92AE7F9CF@nic.cz> <CAEik=Cv0AXRTLKc1azgnKRrMtQxrC19kX5_RqaQNSt9nkDfPFw@mail.gmail.com> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$@tndh.net> <m2o9zv7bh5.wl-randy@psg.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612282213390.18445@sleekfreak.ath.cx> <B137A15F-A5C1-41BE-84B5-A12DF2D5AFFC@virtualized.org> <FE7643B1-28CB-4ABA-AF95-1B831D701E25@frobbit.se> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <804FC2E1-1141-455A-8E53-33755B732F1A@frobbit.se> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <8D87002E-FB28-4CA7-8FB5-EFE3A7C00893@frobbit.se> <71858782-f9ca-650e-e4f9-93cda56648e8@gmail.com> <m2h95k4qx9.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:50:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3fCVOyYZvEsq-4Bnb91zNoPy=gCUW-edFzFLuxZPFGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c14bc9a772ddc0544f9a1af
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9JnNPbzVn2gyi4-eKhgdO3k3cwU>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:50:33 -0000

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
...

> and, let me repeat for the fourth time, enterprises of scale use
> dhcp to drive clients to the desired exit.  dhcp6 does not let
> them do that.  without feature parity we don't get to play.
>
> randy
>

I'm not getting exactly what you are saying.

When you say "use dhcp to drive clients to the desired exit", which exit do
are you referring to?  The local subnet exit, AKA the local exit router?
Or, are you referring to an enterprise level exit?

But, I agree there are several problems with DHCPv6 and its parity with
DHCPv4, and this is a serious barrier to enterprise adoption of IPv6.  My
favored to harp on is that they use different primary keys to identify a
host, DHCPv4 uses MAC address and DHCPv6 uses DUID.  I understand why, but
it is still an operational nightmare.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================