IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 01 February 2018 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 79CFA12EBD1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:07:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 nh9FdgIgehk1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 75F9012D967 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2DB61B1; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:06:36 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1517511996; bh=B2PgIe0Otm4WSfcSL6NsJTH4xSqxI+i7R68KdDMMp+w=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PmyA0t/ZOZuXG8fJOtF0CRCjOQ8GSz9+q0DRWlpIyqXdUyylFLD801PzcpsUQr0bw CVgkJzD8ihFSC0mNxgn6jzjpbUf+8GpXrsq/RyclDlzgq/7gPzSL2DmoP0dEygjtWh 6m4tfo8KvLjsgBkSYsEMewkg6VUsY9luydloaxew=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14876B0; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:06:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 20:06:36 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
In-Reply-To: <1cbc7829b62b4dc09dcbe0ab5f700344@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802012003310.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <91953634-9B4A-405B-AB36-FBB2079A0A40@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1oTmBOQR7YJnJV3S9_NG54sA-+phzRMwPT5qQcF1nKPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311327410.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr04NV0+r1V1XnOo9XUu2GF_RiVPN6pqM0pJ0a68=mC9Zw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311402350.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2cTdK+kkojHa5qPOO4VyT=jW1pmJmf=uXSrdif404iQQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802010954270.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr28iU=jCBv7dy4D8gyeL=uB5hFu-YhGOKPiih9sykZ1GQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011138010.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <658076313dd5488080a596717d00c19b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011733380.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <d9091a6779aa47cc905a1fdb76480b84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011805250.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <c3357bf41dab4c268039fa8fe463bc8f@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011832480.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1cbc7829b62b4dc09dcbe0ab5f700344@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/82vCubjToGB2UoLPmmkIrNhvM3M>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 Feb 2018 19:07:00 -0000

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Templin, Fred L wrote:

> I get your frustration, but I believe DHCPv6PD works if the implementer
> simply follows the specs.

Didn't we just agree that DHCPv6-PD and relays was blatantly obvious and 
didn't need spec:s?

>> So your proposal of tunneling DHCPv6 inside RS/RA and if that means we get
>> operational guidance such as "zero lifetime in the RA means deprecate all
>> DHCPv6 resources you have" and similar, would help a long way.
>
> Do we want to put some energy behind this?

I'd prefer if we took some of DHCPv6 option space, some of the state 
machines, and ditched the rest, and explained how this was done using 
something else, for instance ND.

But short of that yes, there should be operational documents (in v6ops 
perhaps) that tells implementors how SLAAC and DHCPv6 works together, and 
what certain SLAAC messages means for DHCPv6 based resources.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email