IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF 109

otroan@employees.org Sun, 08 November 2020 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 29CDA3A0DAA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:08 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 4raDOUU19Dt9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AA83A0C27 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (201.51-175-101.customer.lyse.net [51.175.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D15F44E11AFF; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0C8438CF01; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 18:35:05 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF 109
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2o22usnWm=jbkDZ3Gdu9vACyBPAQ1kGj+Pyaxp1Y5z=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 18:35:04 +0100
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D9BADCAB-2342-4E29-9002-25842E884C77@employees.org>
References: <79251783-8235-4EE6-8659-66C8E52735A3@gmail.com> <CABNhwV2o22usnWm=jbkDZ3Gdu9vACyBPAQ1kGj+Pyaxp1Y5z=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DAEgg2gRHfi0a6UU4uyT7wZcOzE>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 17:35:08 -0000

Hi Gyan,

> As we have had thus far and ongoing quite a bit of discussion on variable slaac can we add this to the agenda.  We can also expand the scope of discussion as to all use cases related to slaac longer prefix lengths and how it can be beneficial per the “Extending a /64” new thread.  I can start the discussion and we can take it from there.

The "Extending a /64" thread (which I in hindsight see is poorly named) is not about longer prefix lengths.
It is about exploring solutions to the problem of extending a network assigned with a single /64 with multiple links.

<chair-hat>Bob and I had a discussion with the chairs of v6ops, where we agreed to have the "what is the operational problem" discussion over in v6ops.</chair-hat>.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email