IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 15:46 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 261B93A0408 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 X3beuWyrZjiC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:46:25 -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 58EE43A03F8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CVsfT1kVvz1ntn3; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:46:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1605023185; bh=zN+ddnSu/8Q4F5wMFOJQIvLrDzi1+pFWzEY4BHtC7FI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mszflRONQQEjfbfRYR9Toe1ubpQsLY/SUlGQXbHEX9LenDsqavobtf/KOa10HJpDY b97lOSgtZvusK6mUK9mCx4NpWJ5zl04qTqkL+Ky7kFh1Bq63Gx8kHzQPaccxsPOoFs ikxxe1QfefqzEZ2+R/IQCKz5vc+zpf9D4SpW5om0=
X-Quarantine-ID: <7_TY_vgeauTN>
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 4CVsfS571jz1ntZF; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:46:24 -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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:46:24 -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: <28C2E56B-1443-480A-B3D1-82E0F8CC0EC7@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/ipv6/81QFYHYkxInTSjshe6ieWDSEh1s>
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 15:46:26 -0000

So we add a bit (as the earlier proposal did) to make clear that the 
intent in this case is to make the prefix available to the recipient. 
Over this pt-to-pt link.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/10/2020 10:38 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Joel,
> 
>> Ole, I do not understand what you are asking.
>> network A is allocating to rotuer B over a point-to-point link a prefix.  (The router might be a 3GPP UE.  It might be a fixed wireless RG. Doesn't matter.)
>> If there is a network behind B, the B can use that prefix for that network.  Obviously, if it is multi-hop network and we want to get multiple levels of allocation, then other tools are needed.  That was the homenet problem.
>> This approach does not claim to solve the whole homenet problem.  It solves a simple and common problem.
> 
> In the 64share solution the prefix is assigned to the _link_ between then PE and the CE.
> The CE steals that prefix and assigns it to downstream interfaces.
> 
> In PD the prefix is delegated (as in the authority of the prefix changes) to the CE.
> 
> Do you understand the difference? And the implications of that difference?
> 
> I.e. that prefix lifetime is limited to the lifetime of the connection.
> Again, we do not know how to operate networks with rapidly changing addresses.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email