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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 30 December 2016 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE611294AD for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mg2n0WGKq_4Y for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C7512963C for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 189so67621356pfz.3 for <>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l5fNKnW1ec08GOHZaMgddmpVgN8nSyDAB8XNgWJPqCE=; b=RLI76d2yJo//2NzmHUYy0hnNo0+7x7ajLqBcv3LoDr7sWtH/e8MruHcbfb2g31l6UT 2EspuEtUlROI5YkdR8Upbi1yBhUAcAAvs5WaHCTqbvYEA48pphdUOU/S8ROL3C1TLm1F zEU466kCmnoSiiH5ALAaIZhgMcN55jHr3qEY4B+kSuNQ5pDTW7AnXqVi0nD4M+wWaFwn RR1+zbNnhla649hxz+qs/TPVTXs16TO9+IHZ3H5EI4A96BEN3/QI2GP1UJb3aZaADe3D u4doZvEI5ddibaPzm/l6KwM2lEgzfifLnVahDUOEHZIJ4FQuAr4DvuVWO5P2iNybN3C0 jQaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l5fNKnW1ec08GOHZaMgddmpVgN8nSyDAB8XNgWJPqCE=; b=nrGXJFHs8I5S4xPTrqiS05kkflOgmFl2DrFwdx6/v0qv9OHzDTbW/VunJb4rL3x+dx 8C6kPnWDWohppSQy7i3Ms0+elgj99Qm8Ua6cv/5ooti9lxAPmFWnEUp25Jg0/aHyGArT SaM9v0obf/WcWKBzUytQpNumDZ05uqpqzsFoWJxT84v5vk6Ju5Ig61rAU3dJZS9wHj0b yvujhw9ASOk4mZImoI2lb1yXfUYVgp+PxFqXZCKbuu+RffXDCEvCMtTc4k3yuwNmX4DR f3iY5WOC9QgRSA8N/7JkO4FyvxklQymnnF2c5DanLa6g8xvSUpagAC0L7bhyrm2ZrJj0 CJJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ7SfV1UcMJKjY9CXOuWFkxPcEacuObg6JxSUvlJP97Je+ojzSZRfD/5mjkYYMXcg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n127mr89966641pga.104.1483138341480; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:62f9:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:62f9:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id 16sm114872303pfk.54.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= <>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$> <> <> <> <> <5FBCC938E3BF3F24CD0B9C42@PSB> <> <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:52:28 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 22:52:26 -0000

On 31/12/2016 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 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.

Yes. Including running code, to my understanding**. HNCP (RFC7788) does prefix
allocation and assumes DHCPv6-PD for prefix distribution. (We also support
DHCPv6-PD in draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management, but that is ongoing work.)

> 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.

For homenets that need subnets, of course. I'm not panicking, however: when it's ready,
it will be used. There's no flag day.