Re: EXPERIMENTAL Variable SLAAC draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 17 December 2020 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 A4DAF3A0D3D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:34:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 hpwhKb6WLaQa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89003A0D3C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0BHGYbHH023192 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:34:37 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B0E62104D7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:34:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81698208593 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:34:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.3.127] ([10.14.3.127]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0BHGYbES008925 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:34:37 +0100
Subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL Variable SLAAC draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <m1kprB3-0000MbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <52d30fd9-6f77-49fc-780e-6fe7cfdcee8a@gmail.com> <m1kptjP-0000ETC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CABNhwV3j8GWZsAgRRyjYJypbcXW3VNbY2fBU8jsOEnZty--DkQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1kpumd-0000HxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAN-Dau2gdUxZqP0QOzjSSP1HAVTzcJbDydeyz=yvS9VKV1ZenQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ac859567-8f88-3a02-b931-f79e71c79d07@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:34:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2gdUxZqP0QOzjSSP1HAVTzcJbDydeyz=yvS9VKV1ZenQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3uCWBAlNjEk4Ovw0u6bo3qhEB7I>
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, 17 Dec 2020 16:34:43 -0000


Le 17/12/2020 à 17:28, David Farmer a écrit :
> +1, more inline.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 9:01 AM Philip Homburg 
> <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com 
> <mailto:pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>> wrote:
> 
>> The experimental is to test this 3GPP  use case to change  the IPv6
>> architecture RFC 4291 to eliminate 64 bit boundary.  As the removal
>> solution is the experimental using the sysctl to for slaac to allow
>> variable length prefixes to perform a study of impact to endpoints
> using
>> sysctl for v2v only thus would not impact other devices.  This
> would be a
>> controlled method of testing variable slaac.
> 
> Changing RFC 4191 has been debated for a long time, and there
> doesn't seem to be any consensus that changing the 64-bit boundary
> is something that should be done.
> 
> It could be that an experiment provides input in a discussion, but
> in this case there seems to be no link between the discussion and the
>  experiment.
> 
> So the only outcome of the experiment could be that a change that 
> violates one of the core standards of IPv6 would technically work. 
> However that doesn't seem to be in dispute.
> 
> Obviously anybody can just experiment without an RFC or endorsement 
> from the IETF.
> 
> 
> Does anyone really doubt that the 64-bit boundary could be changed
> if there was a consensus to do so?

I am not asking to change the 64bit boundary.

If one is really convinced by the necessity of the 64bit boundary then I
would like to invite to promote to the mobile operators the delivery of
/56 to the end user.

Are you convinced by the necessity of the 64bit boundary?

Alex


  I don't think so. The argument has
> always been it shouldn't be changed, not that it can't be changed,
> if we wish to do so. I don't believe there is anything a formal 
> experiment can tell us we don't already know. This is merely an 
> attempt to get the camel's nose into the tent. NO, an experiment 
> isn't necessary!
> 
> Thanks -- =============================================== David 
> Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> 
> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information 
> Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone:
> 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 
> ===============================================
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>