IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 28 January 2020 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 7B3C512007A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:39:53 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 UHgEpkT_9X8e for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55007120077 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:39:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 00SDdjAb033595 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:39:46 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net> <AFEBAD7D-DF24-4924-8B9A-60DF22BA1953@consulintel.es> <c42affce-fbd3-23ec-c9ff-4f05cdf38630@si6networks.com> <41173152-A8E8-4241-9DE7-376AA7AFB813@consulintel.es> <c4166907-b6c9-a4ef-fd59-cf539bbe0405@si6networks.com> <43D76C96-C16B-4BEB-B9B8-C68D53BCE63F@fugue.com> <fb5b8377-892d-2777-ef9b-4f9ddefa6c93@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr034_tu7ZoJ1FCfDYhNSN6igm-ZQyR4u3U+UDMr=huGOw@mail.gmail.com> <1af0b06d-f9d7-5ea1-27f3-b417eb9148fa@si6networks.com> <7606A049-318D-4526-917D-F2A801BF7050@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr1d9kORFdoOJr22J_UDJ9hLPr6AQLyWuh7=bAQKa+aXGw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356588FC3E8A6410B725D159D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr35meRGh_POo_2jrHA_oazO1xUOG5G_rx43xNLFYHQsMQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356526F01CAE1CADEF8E4472D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0-rmyzz3y1d+pCpA0+tGuhSdjojaJovXUzVuyx6UdeLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <98179a48-8d86-4673-6c82-fc0022988862@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:38:55 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0-rmyzz3y1d+pCpA0+tGuhSdjojaJovXUzVuyx6UdeLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HMllC34znaoepW934cebAKHLxYQ>
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, 28 Jan 2020 13:39:54 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote on 28/01/2020 10:14:
> Second: for many networks, the desired saturation point is one
> address. I think we here all agree that is a bad idea

This seems to be a curiously simplistic view of a complex policy issue 
for which there is no single answer.

Specifically we don't all agree that this is a bad idea and many people 
in this working group and others have been very clear that whether this 
is a good or a bad idea depends on the situation.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email