Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> Mon, 13 November 2017 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <erey@ernw.de>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E381294EF; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:20:45 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 JYattYCq_KWN; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:20:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.ernw.net (mx1.ernw.net [IPv6:2003:60:4010:10a0::11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A09D1294E8; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.ernw.net (unknown [IPv6:fd00:2001:0:d001::30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail1.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mx1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A395C27365; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ws26.ernw.net (unknown [172.31.1.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ws26.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mail1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8227F632DC0; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by ws26.ernw.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 5F15D39993; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:20:40 +0100
From: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Message-ID: <20171113082040.GF35038@ernw.de>
References: <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <862687c9-c107-53a8-288a-29049097b0e1@acm.org> <AM5PR0701MB2836C00EA1AAC73E7E63F583E02B0@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Zz6Jxg_ZuEbBkMhBdEaZKOrtx-eUns7KWi9v-5PDBzg@mail.gmail.com> <68CF4FB7-FC94-41A0-A97B-F783F6DB7825@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr06ssb=kpY=n=L7pxuU9VpBJDJpx9qy=H8cqSrRZEzmtw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr06ssb=kpY=n=L7pxuU9VpBJDJpx9qy=H8cqSrRZEzmtw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-F8STe1QPs2Equ_jpGALk7JKc7c>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:20:46 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 05:17:12PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:
> >
> >
> >    - DHCPv6 PD has exactly the same problem.
> >
> > DHCPv6 PD specifies a stateful mechanism for managing prefixes.
> >
> 
> And it does not specify how those prefixes are pushed to routers between
> the requesting router and the DHCPv6 server. But in the real world, that is
> a hard requirement for things to work, since in the real world, the DHCPv6
> server is almost never in the client's first-hop router.

I didn't follow the full thread but wasn't it supposed to discuss SLAAC (somewhat becoming SFAAC) and not DHCPv6?

thanks

Enno





> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Matthias Luft, Enno Rey

=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================