Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

james woodyatt <> Fri, 10 November 2017 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AC61200C5 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n389AFbklevV for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A20731294B7 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d66so15047383ioe.5 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=xcLr/IJVznYNWLS2NPY1l1i2Z/56Vat15itKtcoYSpc=; b=qiZofiSf5ehsH2wA9Z4yzElOFhIZIAgFzk2c8V6pXVT6mIX9fFA4jQzxhkwvp6pcDv HQsVBNzAHqSdEsq+426q0iRFFkUN+nqDOVSZR/yCnLY7QliNvuoIzSQZgREIaJZqXWzR vxQh4Zwfvb2o5qJ+G1msJkDOZA9WE6dmi3q619f2OOZW6ICZtRWdNX5cyPoohBRzFFxJ d3dNc1uJpi2oBlBcRn4Bm6H/hM9hcW/ybzg2BMdnJTtyBQs5m/jemWcKe0I1iDFPd6fC MR3fLb11ooZs7pXUmM0PbAGHL/n7Yt/WrgXzr79cG62+F5pSvhxHOo3kVCyBQ9IUT6nD G85Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=xcLr/IJVznYNWLS2NPY1l1i2Z/56Vat15itKtcoYSpc=; b=CX32TQkmEbW89xljaDTqAVFtHO95Ulqhnu2S4SJn1AWR/g7ZNye+Zdl4JusAWyJV3t QL6cYLFQADLYGHHBXX3a9dDB7KCOyydIpJ/PQptWqd4jvdT6PnhWF8yxHWHCO92k5sOr EaXT46kvLJptMCEsuPYSX1QjHKMfqSTbtUrdovsRUcmdQSgLLASSYLTO8TiL8bpuXEtq HwZpJ7rzMq7gYUtwx6zdQ66YyOoLjkO6j4s0/GWNVfVGJfjRuZnywwSEFuqDlr87PxeR Tr3Cjm0M/u5AzGYzFIt4+Vu1hVcfUUx2LRgJuq6ioi60IagY/HDIT9LlqqPYjAvy7IO+ A+sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6xcfm9RWEsPI7ZvxgfzXmoBESXz4XkTn+sQ0Zf7Sd7JP0JCGOt QeA5MT4CsOu7sx/l3yBWmIdqsw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbl1YmtEO1uPK7kTXeVp1xk+4L5pA1koR23thBLVsXadYjKXCLvSynQ7QOffrCpA29I2XHrUw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e189mr2109781ioa.70.1510351120425; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id a72sm1366874itb.34.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:39 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F51B085-143B-4F1D-A798-4563E6031C6E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:58:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>,
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 21:58:45 -0000

On Nov 10, 2017, at 12:23, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> So, my request would be. For folks arguing that this document is not a
> protocol spec, could you please provide a definition of what a protocol
> is, and subsequently explain why/how such definition does not encompass
> this document?

I think the definition of “protocol” in the New Oxford Dictionary is adequate. Its entry includes a specialization for “Computing” that reads as follows:

	Computing a set of rules governing the exchange or transmission of data between devices.

This document does not introduce any new rules governing the exchange of data between a provider router and its subscriber hosts. It merely describes a strategy that providers may use under those rules for their routers to provide a set of unique prefixes to each subscriber host. The rules of the existing protocol specified by 6MAN remain unchanged, and one imagines that if 6MAN doesn’t approve of the strategy that V6OPS describes here, then it’s on 6MAN to revise the protocol accordingly.

One might think to counter that the strategy described here does include some explicit and implied requirements on provider routers to perform correctly the existing, already described, protocol for the indicated purpose, but those new requirements do not change the set of rules that govern the exchange, i.e. the protocol. In other words, this draft identifies only a set of further constraints on the behavior of one party in the protocol and describes those constraints as a Best Current Practice. Which is perfectly in line with the V6OPS charter.

--james woodyatt < <>>