Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 AA2D7129431; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:32:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 OZswdDl_PBCz; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC7D0129576; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:ed68:7911:ebe1:178e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:ed68:7911:ebe1:178e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 474B68098C; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:32:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com> <BBAB48C0-384B-4380-9359-7965C7C61D58@employees.org> <4b7e8e53-ea7a-f84d-92cf-a9a113c200ce@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPZ2dxJ7JSz07wEE6TCqwRyGv=wSQmQ3Wci-L_3uix9_w@mail.gmail.com> <d3a874b6-5353-d3dd-a87f-9fe4aa1fe3aa@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaOVVpJ11-2VYzn=VEziVy3j+8wdVziP0Kfo5=7w4Z6ePw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <38f6b6bf-8684-72f2-d191-52bb9cfb8c00@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:33:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJc3aaOVVpJ11-2VYzn=VEziVy3j+8wdVziP0Kfo5=7w4Z6ePw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9KhHOB_7vvQ_oLDQBW7lXXQr1Wc>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:32:51 -0000

On 11/13/2017 10:23 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2017 09:22 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2017 11:07 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the implementation approach is as you've described, this is outside
>>>> of the SLAAC specification, indeed (nobody can prevent you from spawning
>>>> instances of SLAAC that behave according to the existing standards).
>>>> >From a operational point of view, one would wonder why pursue this path
>>>> as opposed to e.g. do DHCPv6 -- even if that means: we want to support
>>>> Android, and Android does not support DHCPv6.
>>>
>>> My understanding is one of the authors is an operator and the model
>>> represents operational experience and input on this.
>>
>> This doesn't answer the question I made above.
> 
> It was noted "From a operational point of view, one would wonder why
> pursue this path as opposed to e.g. do DHCPv6".
> 
> What I am suggesting is the draft represents an actual operational
> point of view from people in the field.
> 
> However, the methods described don't inhibit other choices to be made
> in other networks, with perhaps other circumstances, to use DHCPv6.

A point of view doesn't become, automagically, a BCP.

And I don't think that the IETF should increase complexity for no
reason. IPv6 automatic configuration is, aleady, enough of a mess to add
more on top of it.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492