IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

otroan@employees.org Wed, 11 November 2020 07:27 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 094B63A0A13 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:27:51 -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 uoQMZvcTHELv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:27:49 -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 5473D3A0A29 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (201.51-175-101.customer.lyse.net [51.175.101.201]) (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 BB0E74E11AE5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 07:27:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0D443C501F; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:27:45 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:27:45 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com> <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0h9=7p+n=qnH1o1EHqtPrsaYebgvHciOJpP3=iXgNgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0C739112-D8EA-42C3-BEFD-88C014D5BCD0@employees.org> <62bc0e56-85b8-42ea-c46b-4f2205dc435f@joelhalpern.com> <28C2E56B-1443-480A-B3D1-82E0F8CC0EC7@employees.org> <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSr-TPcGo7f9EGgoAahYLQTL68CUSq58LGMgD0=6GmRRg@mail.gmail.com> <8DC674FB-9F90-4C41-A323-62BD62934A12@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTYBs8YbHgCJJG84vgwXK4ZSCm65z6KXvZP9F+LdT_atg@mail.gmail.com> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PRy87jTUSmODHSC61iV5xu773-w>
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, 11 Nov 2020 07:27:51 -0000

Cameron,

> > It isn't as much an implementation problem (implementation of this is easy) it's the operational problems caused by this (operations in the end-user networks).
> > 
> > Can you be specific with regards to text in the i-d draft ? 
> 
> Can't you rather describe how it is supposed to work?
> I'm not the one suggesting ephemeral addressing of networks...
> 
> The i-d does not mention ephemeral addressing. 
> 
> To focus progress, let’s focus on the text of the i-d. 

This discussion is a sub-thread of Gyan's more generic thread.

> Perhaps you would like the i-d to say the RA allocation should not be ephemeral ?

Yes, please.

I think the draft needs to include:

 - the delegated prefix lifetime must be long lived and independent of the CE-PE link state
   it should also say something about the consequences of renumbering and how that's handled
 - the PIO is used for prefix discovery on the directly connected link, a different option
   "delegated prefix option" should be created. A principle of good protocol design is to be explicit
 - ND has been designed to be datalink type agnostic. This mechanism should not assume a 3GPP link.
   Needs text to state that this new option requires per client messaging or an underlaying p2p link.
 - Unsure if you need some way for the client to refresh or request a delegation.
 - You need to clarify host/router behaviour in that you now make the RS/RA behaviour between routers.
 - You should require a mechanism for the CE to verify forwarding state in the PE. We missed that in 3315.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email