Re: 64share v2 Tue, 10 November 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80A43A0EA2 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-v402gFl6-Z for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC413A0E9E for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:893a:3cee:c2a8:d287]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3F144E11B49; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F397A43AED80; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:13:30 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:13:30 +0100
Cc: Ca By <>, Erik Kline <>, Mikael Abrahamsson <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:13:38 -0000

> This looks pretty similar to the PIO-X bit which +Erik Kline and +Mikael Abrahamsson wrote up in 2017:
> I can't remember what happened to that. IIRC one of the primary difficulties was that the scheme needs a strong guarantee from the link layer that the RA is received by only one host. The minutes from IETF 98 suggest that there was also a concern that it duplicates existing functionality in DHCPv6 PD. Also there was a question about the router being able to authenticate the client.
> Maybe time to revive this?

RA in general is a one to many protocol. Providing configuration information tothe attached link.
Which is not the intended case here.

I suppose you could restrict this option to point to point link or unicast RA only.
And make a new option. You will end up re-inventing PD though.

The biggest concern is that delegated prefix is expected to have a lifetime equivalent to the L2 link state.
We don't know how to build networks with those properties...