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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 30 December 2016 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 6AF44120727 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:56:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=frobbit.se
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 DBojlDE9w_99 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF03128B44 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.165.72.121] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:14fc:2190:5361:5989]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EBBF21E43; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:47:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1483130862; bh=SrkVlcU1cQEsQ6+Ax6aAsGxKksd/Plz/QqyevC29tx0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S0B7Ey3P6WLbej60PSPPYEv1wmULaVZ3yr3yG/IAtNneDIbl/ggN88JL51kAcZEh8 1Lh0GRcgM1dtgNwuA+YNagHuwSGkqCZykujczv/igL2VcOGAhRTk+u6uAaKPS5kpLb 6kaW+fvxnVythiGDglmPWiHCjdu1jsVZUR4Kq0Ts=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:47:43 +0100
Message-ID: <FBCB70F9-01B5-4CF8-94D8-29946CF82A12@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <71858782-f9ca-650e-e4f9-93cda56648e8@gmail.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_4E5C87EA-2D82-4214-A81C-E00A9BF58A57_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6072)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OTyjBY-R7ht6S58alGfkFjrnlus>
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: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:56:09 -0000

On 30 Dec 2016, at 21:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Please be more specific. What doesn't work that you want to work? And which of
> those things will not be addressed by homenet?

Is SLAAC+NDP, DHCPv6+NDP or DHCPv6-PD to be used for prefix allocation?

Or something else?

I am pretty sure Homenet is working on this.

But that is exactly my point when I say that IPv6 must be *really* ready the day when people will ask for it.

And when I say we should use the fact we do have some time to refine the specifications, implementations and deployment so that we are ready when CPEs start to really implement IPv6 in whatever way Homenet is specifying.

   paf