Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

Vint Cerf <> Thu, 05 May 2016 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14EA12D0E3 for <>; Thu, 5 May 2016 02:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.696 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTMrN-t8C12Q for <>; Thu, 5 May 2016 02:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 144BD12D542 for <>; Thu, 5 May 2016 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g133so117321927ywb.2 for <>; Thu, 05 May 2016 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=mWb0FAARfZ3r26dqQL1+5X7eSsd5PMEzQ22r3kFsLAY=; b=YmqzGqG6UqiQK671sZJThmElMsY8LgIOWyPTRS4h35EOkhGpaZIviE/Ih1iKeEdNaM C2v8+UCCm36UkFfVPqPUnHZ0SxrjL2UyydRpI2frbiKHaK92YPiilluJl1PEEaLz7nn6 pNHoxFK4AtbvULo/iVovaazG0Pen50DMTZWx91JK3zeAavvVOFiSUjsPgB5CxTH9eCEB k6RTNX0tX4hwHZugDquA330BOAzIoWlm9jJqKcz3CSrP7WruJPyKgdcngr/mUaFKK4R+ C0Vw07HBkY93QPQtINErIpVHtQF1s/GytY2zqfQzgmMThK2WZ9ZPlM0Z6BjD0MJW8PMw Qdtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=mWb0FAARfZ3r26dqQL1+5X7eSsd5PMEzQ22r3kFsLAY=; b=fTba6AVCQFM+jUrF4YNPz3NnoGTrleD3E4lzIJX8p7iYxoM8zJPxuHXZ+ubjKfcxMj BIHQeuL6mcclMLS8RLkAbHyLfmo6yXZxUyi9bJJy+gzVuNMLpoLAg6RiRj40a24bDvQe 5xVaeIe4yocl3MDMmzyld4kxik32rbV7l9MfFAQRsfFd8DBKM8kqDdSbgpmTC+kECSgR 6p8ILWHgSxZJU8h5j4s2oXyv8VBdXfbM7ZJQNGBi0od0MbT4juasaL0/yj/LoOL2drgb tDtGBj13AZ5oMXyUgenuem2rE6XoaeepF04Gba7PZodcp02qu4sk9CLXf2g+0yXlpHuQ 2JXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWWtynvINUa14vch30mBIE1X0bTUO7UkgarMQCiysp84lMwQ/b/UkrOHii5pD7NjuEVwQrb67kx39z6A23k
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id h144mr7826524ybg.19.1462439383135; Thu, 05 May 2016 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 5 May 2016 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <12bc01d17986$bba33930$32e9ab90$> <> <14ed01d17ad7$99f4ce50$cdde6af0$> <> <>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 05:09:43 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05
From: Vint Cerf <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05537af0943f053214b3b3
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>, General Area Review Team <>, Bob Hinden <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 09:15:32 -0000

when a host forwards packets it's a router. It is not a fixed state.


On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Jari Arkko <> wrote:
>> > So - even though the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the term "requesting router", a
>> host can use DHCPv6 PD to receive a prefix as well. The host can pick some
>> addresses for that prefix for its own use, originate/terminate packets on
>> those addresses, and not forward packets addressed to any of the other
>> addresses in the prefix.
>> Lorenzo: Personally, I think it would perhaps useful to consider a slight
>> reformulation of the text, given that for things like tethering or virtual
>> machines, hosts essentially become routers.
> Personally I agree. I think hosts are routers that are currently not
> forwarding packets
>  However, this topic generated a lot of heat in the WG, with people
> arguing vocally on both sides. So it was not easy to come up with this
> text. There's also the fact that the IPv6 specification (RFC 2460 itself)
> defines hosts and routers, and if we made a statement on the matter, we
> might have had to formally update RFC 2460, which we did not want to
> attempt. (Bob, is this something that could be re-examined in 2460bis? I
> think defining a router as "a node that forwards packets" and a host as "a
> node that's not a router" is a bit simplistic these days, particularly when
> a node decides to enable forwarding between some set of its interfaces but
> not all.)
> Going back to the text - Jari, do you have a suggestion on how to reword
> this? The main reason that text is there is because a small number of WG
> participants said, "we can't use DHCPv6 PD on hosts because DHCPv6 PD is
> for routers and hosts aren't routers". We wanted to clarify that.

New postal address:
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190