Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6A31AE0BA; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 GL5fUAp8bgze; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B75E1AD937; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUqgEiRxzHXACpxbcStw4mqx93fG7baDP@postini.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:01 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C081B82E3; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0823F190043; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8185CEF1-9037-4956-B37E-0CFAE5689316@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:21:58 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <731AA5B7-427D-4A2C-B90E-F5A46B7C1017@nominum.com>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <8185CEF1-9037-4956-B37E-0CFAE5689316@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Dec 2013 06:22:09 -0000

On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> that's incorrect. there are no flags in the RA that indicates if prefix delegation is available or not.   prefix delegation is between routers, routers don't listen to RAs was the rationale.

It's certainly true that RFC 4861 doesn't mention prefix delegation, and this is a plausible rationale for not doing so.   However, the HG is clearly a router, and it's being required to listen to RAs, so the distinction you are making is _extremely_ artificial.