IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)

otroan@employees.org Tue, 28 January 2020 14:27 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 C449212011A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 06:27:14 -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 OQWDfyqeVuDc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 06:27:13 -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 301F8120071 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 06:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (76.84-234-131.customer.lyse.net [84.234.131.76]) (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 D6F8A4E12C2F; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:27:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8102A4BB27; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 15:27:10 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
Subject: Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <98179a48-8d86-4673-6c82-fc0022988862@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 15:27:10 +0100
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F84FEFAF-1F78-47D4-B3E0-981DCFD0CB58@employees.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> <98179a48-8d86-4673-6c82-fc0022988862@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MOJUAxQ_X0fxAH2hbys3qiLaXeg>
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 14:27:15 -0000

>> 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.

Indeed.

In the context of 4941bis last call, it might be prudent of us to revisit this change:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05#section-8
6.  Temporary addresses are *not* disabled by default.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email