IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso

otroan@employees.org Thu, 19 November 2020 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 7425C3A0FC3; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:51:57 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 seNU_DL5_ZpQ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A58A13A0FD2; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:8134:785f:b705:6f79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B887B4E11BAA; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7318459D8DB; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:51:41 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV19neE3U_AisNp2nDUF4bWB8P8xHNEznDevZLE9amFTRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:51:41 +0100
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0F78C18B-7AD6-4AC7-AF1F-CA1ADCDEA6AB@employees.org>
References: <CABNhwV3fj-e9bEemivcNovnD3SZvKm8ZjFKp7BmusnPcgyznFQ@mail.gmail.com> <7ED24CC7-A719-4E9B-A5DC-3BA8EA7E3929@consulintel.es> <CABNhwV19neE3U_AisNp2nDUF4bWB8P8xHNEznDevZLE9amFTRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0KHxnwUbHt7hNTWW_SWf0WVggd0>
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:51:57 -0000

> That solves one problem but does not solve the 64share v2 issue as we have to still modify 
> RFC 4861 for mobile to accept shorter prefix.  

As Lorenzo explained during the meeting reusing the PIO isn't going to work.

You would need a new option. It would likely be useful for the requesting router to indicate interest in the option. Even hinting at what prefix size it was expecting.
Now can you explain to me again the reasons why this approach is better than using the existing DHPCv6 protocol packets?

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email