Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28-Sep-22 12:24, David Farmer wrote:
> 
> The problem with RFC7078 is that Android doesn’t do DHCPv6, and I don’t want to start another round of that holy war.

+1

> 
> Furthermore, RFC6724 puts the camels nose in the tent already and it is my understanding that Android already does the recommendation in RFC6724, section 10.6.
> 
> And creating a new flag is going to take forever.
> 
> Unfortunately, you might as well deprecate ULA, because for most implementations it is useless.

But people are using it; just not as its designers probably intended.

    Brian

> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 16:41 Ole Troan <otroan=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>     On 27 Sep 2022, at 23:32, Brian Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>     End of section 2.1
> 
>     That would be a stretch.
> 
>     Regardlessly if we agree on what the existing standards say or not. The proponents of this need to look at the consequences of overloading the protocol and why this is better than just using 7078.
> 
>     O.
> 
> 
>>
>>     Regards,
>>         Brian Carpenter
>>         (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>>
>>     On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, 09:57 Ole Troan, <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>         RFC8028
>>
>>         Isn’t that a host behavior document?
>>         Could not find where that changes router behavior.
>>
>>         O.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>         Regards,
>>>             Brian Carpenter
>>>             (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>>>
>>>         On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, 09:00 Ole Troan, <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             > On 27 Sep 2022, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             > On 28-Sep-22 08:40, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>             >>> (It is the presence of a ULA /48 prefix in local routing that we care about. The PIO for a /64 within that /48 is the trigger that it needs high precedence.)
>>>             >> Extending and overloading existing protocol fields is problematic. The proponents of this need at least to consider the consequences for existing implementations and future extensibility of the protocol. As well as the deployability of this, compared to existing standardized solutions.
>>>             >
>>>             > There isn't a standardized solution, since the mechanism for updating the RFC6724 table is not standardized. A=L=0 is already standardized to mean "I can route this prefix" and the proposal builds on that exact semantic.
>>>
>>>             Can you point to text stating that a PIO with A=L=0 in an RA from a router is a promise by that router to forward traffic for those prefixes? Or that a PIO has that semantic in any context.
>>>
>>>             Rfc7078?
>>>
>>>             O. 
>>>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================