IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 11 November 2020 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 0AD253A0418 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:50:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.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 gZ2Gq5QysiDc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 4969C3A03F4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 899ECB1; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605095430; bh=AmJHLt1gI8XO5C/NAmvUqTpbXLMcjJPzMDps8bqj5A8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nlyhJeJxmNebZo7p7yIS5cl/j3HHToyE4xAGQNBYqoe2lFsnVszX1/NlNDyzWXS3t gfOUvhGhq32aB37WXxvcOWREPf4m7cSRNekHATRDl1tqLHJYI6xG2t8SswFQecXg4+ 11GaIc2WG/c4lzdU38e1f65BarTTYyu3qJO/ExZ4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BA7B0; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:50:30 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111248460.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSr-TPcGo7f9EGgoAahYLQTL68CUSq58LGMgD0=6GmRRg@mail.gmail.com> <8DC674FB-9F90-4C41-A323-62BD62934A12@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTYBs8YbHgCJJG84vgwXK4ZSCm65z6KXvZP9F+LdT_atg@mail.gmail.com> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.or g> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com> <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0tDTSH2F4=ZsdMJREy1k6equ9mZV0Au1bJPmKuzxeYVA@mail.gmail.com> <43C449AD-D116-4452-A4F2-79AE5A76539F@employees.org> <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-Uk6NmTst8NDIDeWYwiZqN0Ge1A>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:50:36 -0000

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In many DHCPv6 PD installations we have the issue that the lifetime of the
> prefix is completely detached from the forwarding state.
>
> If we define a new option to do prefix delegation using RA, then maybe we
> can try to get rid of lifetimes are the primary mechnism and switch to
> something more explicit.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-05

This actually tries to figure out if an address/prefix works, and if 
not, act.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email