Re: 64share v2

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 1B8513A0D93 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 4FKfkzXTRcjg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 1E11E3A0D8E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CVwCB6JH8z1nvFK; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:41:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1605030086; bh=JviPUzMsH/QF0htYeUj1Djvi6VPcMBF/6FfoSIYTbdM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jBOmbhbI65zS1sz9vKhTl3jM1R/f2XTjfkYLIUF9O99A/imzLLh1J4xth5JEW0ROG cwc1ZSI9YVxUIleq3v02Q+nQLbMZGwJ3WHCsog+ntwUwhu2mEvsaSeqEVjyPxic+m0 NPEiflEFbYDE8sSJomgDNcojnT999nirX8nFNMnU=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Uk7qkTZc3uTD>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CVwCB1DHWz1nsT7; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com> <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0h9=7p+n=qnH1o1EHqtPrsaYebgvHciOJpP3=iXgNgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0C739112-D8EA-42C3-BEFD-88C014D5BCD0@employees.org> <62bc0e56-85b8-42ea-c46b-4f2205dc435f@joelhalpern.com> <28C2E56B-1443-480A-B3D1-82E0F8CC0EC7@employees.org> <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b980a8ce-f208-89d8-5a23-fbe1f5a91c69@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:41:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org>
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/ipv6/5roqxv4IkIpbCXVPvICEOTm_vkI>
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:41:28 -0000

Ole, that problem statement is not how I understand Cameron's 
description to this list.
Yours,
Joel

On 11/10/2020 11:53 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>>  From what the operators have said, using the existing infrastructure for RA/SLAAC is important.  They have not needed DHCPv6.  So they want to be able to offer this using the tools they have deployed.  That seems reasonable to me.  Creating a new protocol for this would seem even worse.
> 
> Then you must have missed the point I made earlier.
> 
> What operators find attractive about the RA hack is a deployment model where the user's delegated prefix is taken out of a dynamic pool local to the box.
> That deployment model results in ephemeral addresses. Which might work in an environment with tethering today (a client-only stub network, where user is expected to press refresh often). But it is not obvious how scaling that hack to multiple links/routers is possible. Without a massive cost to the rest of the ecosystem.
> 
> We already have a protocol so no need for a new one.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
>