IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption Call for <draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option>

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 22 September 2021 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 1C7783A0BA0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 l_AqNmmyGDlT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946B13A0B9E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 18M8v653094389 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:57:07 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for <draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <FB7CE846-627F-43CF-A54C-35B0EE6D5A2D@gmail.com> <c7a49df3-59a1-ac24-3d6a-8d71896733a1@foobar.org> <84347b3f-8462-4dc6-580d-544b1bf8aaad@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0NapC=Hw9WcjZcKi5O0FE0pM413wqSMALS0310Ps3R8g@mail.gmail.com> <cd2b98a8-4f3e-3d1e-4b6b-0d4c7e2745e9@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0cYC=g4WhmYvEmn4W9npFu-xjWKf8hd55fwbjAFFo_yA@mail.gmail.com> <109a3287-38da-1ab2-453a-74422a8f75a3@gmail.com> <a0673b6f-9d46-0e6b-976f-bab44f372b9d@edgeuno.com> <06CF1A7A-89FE-4AF7-A7D7-02680DCAB8AF@employees.org> <4b81d9ea-94d9-e2b9-4c79-0e9f917e0ec3@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1qAfszhWFygOnU6B-Wz-YZ77Ssbm0WpDgPQ8oHRKWFvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <85d7e4a9-91ad-e7ba-c847-a961333d7c26@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:57:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.49
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1qAfszhWFygOnU6B-Wz-YZ77Ssbm0WpDgPQ8oHRKWFvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3gGf20sKNXqVr71Q4QWomSqa0B0>
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, 22 Sep 2021 08:57:18 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote on 21/09/2021 16:39:
> That seems like a very bad outcome because the routing and addressing 
> semantics of RAs are better than those of DHCP.

"better" without context is no more than a statement of personal 
preference.  Whether the addressing semantics of RAs are "better" than 
DHCP depends on the deployment case and the desired performance 
characteristics, regardless of the opinions expressed in rfc7934 and 
other documents.

The other points in your email come up every time the slaac-vs-dhcpv6 
argument is given an airing, and there's extensive discussion about why 
your claims about dhcpv6 are overblown or, depending on the context, 
factually wrong.  No doubt RAs work for the intersection of use cases 
and policy requirements that you deal with, but this is not the 
universal experience.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email