IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 6DF893A134C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:53:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 mEVXMIdpqfma for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBB863A1348 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kaM2K-0000J1C; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:53:28 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kaM2K-0000J1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <160409741426.1448.16934303750885888002@ietfa.amsl.com> <3c1c3ab5-5726-b141-e7ed-618984bbbdb1@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1zoZpZNjb54rEys4+49H3vpebZW2g9JbO1_58eR+WnQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3L7kz=cWu8s3X=djVf4MCwewzbEgx09TWaKzCULCjYUQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A9CE8E7-3552-4FD8-A50E-1BDCA2CB813F@employees.org> <CABNhwV0LxM7EuKo2wNtVacjewsVqdhrmSiVBmB_EL-mqJYdU3A@mail.gmail.com> <CD9F9F09-2CBC-4A72-99C0-4A9A470357ED@employees.org> <CABNhwV1WmnQ_vt31t0eUTiEhsi3Du+X+XPafRNv1BgvZS+TPGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:27:22 -0500 ." <CABNhwV1WmnQ_vt31t0eUTiEhsi3Du+X+XPafRNv1BgvZS+TPGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 17:53:28 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MmKuQTGhBqxnN86OzxOJc7sjcm0>
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:53:36 -0000

>We could also write an RFC BCOP that the minimum requirement allocation is
>a /64 and that operators must abide by that.
>
>We could also develop a RIPE doc and publish with ISOC that mandates the
>standard as well as work with all operator groups worldwide to ensure they
>abide by the BCOP.

If mobile providers don't comply with RIPE-690 (and many other documents that
tell ISPs that just providing a /64 is not enough), then why do you expect
that any new documents have any effect?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email