Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 03 March 2017 06:10 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 D269C129499 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:10:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=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 YPgvUPMZ0sCX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 1F19E129432 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 27B45A6; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:09:57 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1488521397; bh=baj1dEStni45WhZtrKTdor+kyieKC1AVavpeTvv81qM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=QX3p21JcOslKm3i5ONKHyMX2fTVV/fk18rUA+1EJOyEy0sLxqYISSInxRJl6+Z31l J6JLlQ6WUfvDc9dnOtz86q/s2TmKblzrTfdmoVwVKCNsSAA9IG8K1xS/Saq0euwUOa 6XqwnkzZXvegwD5IgJipZL5/tkONyndTdKUD/dv8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244A7A3; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:09:57 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:09:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
In-Reply-To: <E2709C92-4C32-4E1C-A8A1-B6B98F0BF336@consulintel.es>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703030706220.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302105206.15fc3886@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr2AYaAQMuGZiKXYwKdgz1dzKs5fc5bm7hQjpuq3O_V8gQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302121104.36ddda4e@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr1cNihxMVHjY2j7mcCNU2TE0X6-0p2mDNCBVVUcUbU20Q@mail.gmail.com> <20170302153611.36506f85@envy> <CAKD1Yr1SbdE-i-oGhi2kEFBWTOi_-FzgVdMYkMWjCEtw0MRRMg@mail.gmail.com> <ee3b73b1-64fd-6fef-bc0a-53b325f0bcfd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021902010.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <efe2504e-198c-36ce-c79f-be1886e5d031@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021929170.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7338F75E-94D9-4330-99C5-C5A9D7B0A066@consulintel.es> <8c848dd1-ceab-887c-5348-2b1bd9920bfa@gmail.com> <367D5BA9-F588-4F2B-A783-2C8BAF9B27BF@consulintel.es> <b6ff1b86-698c-0b8f-6a08-7d6bf8a33c8f@gmail.com> <E2709C92-4C32-4E1C-A8A1-B6B98F0BF336@consulintel.es>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1232420944-1488521397=:30226"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Erk2_0D4HkUeRw-tGfVRwm7O3ig>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:10:01 -0000

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> I understood from one of your previous emails that 3GPP doesn’t require 
> DHCPv6-PD. RFC6653, suggest its use, so probably we got confused 
> ourselves and 3GPP is actually using it.

3GPP is like IETF, it produces documents. DHCPv6-PD has been in 3GPP 
documents since 2012.

Market requirements then makes these documents get implemented. Sometimes 
almost immediately, sometimes 5 years down the line, sometimes never.

DHCPv6-PD seems to be one of these functions that takes a long time. 
Possibly because 64SHARE is already available and solves a majority of the 
problem space. Current 3GPP deployments can be seen as being close to a 
/64 PD deployment in end-user functionality. Works for a lot of use-cases, 
but not what we want long term. However, very widely available in both 
networks and devices.

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