Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

Lorenzo Colitti <> Sat, 02 November 2019 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFE7120077 for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=0.1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hk4x5ves1hlp for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F31D120025 for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a13so11146495ilp.1 for <>; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SnJNrzo2WCeQ3J/OwC2Ll07LvgPuSQBwT4pOUKaE4ig=; b=SRylLVwNqZtooVC7JnXq6riA5lluzJQ5bRkLHU+vFPYD7nZ66bDcee7VFc1DoiRx71 Q4YOS7hQ6TlaB3Oz54eANkCWTdmikfzKkNaoNS+mnosGfQ5VUR9BMaf8VIjKNTJcTc+E N7DgHMAf73kgCgJ2KKVDAAy7ZTSvo+jEspPXs4MPCHDWwQYwPY8QLJHhtDTHFXJHp5LB SbTZO0ySqu/wmK1e0tzEPg7HxLpRynOErogNLRl40/lS1pEbLBEiyFbqekvDKaGg97ny SlD+B66GuWBjSBp+c4wsN3XseIQdfNZo2Jut24PALAH6DuhQfuuj9f7VESuTo22v2A4U 6c3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SnJNrzo2WCeQ3J/OwC2Ll07LvgPuSQBwT4pOUKaE4ig=; b=MuH5NpCEXBWmGahRTmm356pM9LTk2fFIzqaT7FAcGw61bU/JmtiKyg8Duw851R5CNn /b6a3SQsrs2nKKM/7XkEw62zDGEuGruZ8wGKUl43cXZEYF6ZsUngiF6t1K/lRc34P3Ll c+S6BailX1Zvedg2Cvr5Jpi/VPvptANK/AvmnilItH43qZoybvUO9MGKKl417VKxNum8 haVgq56IJxU9rYU8/wcWN9yHhT21NzcIFUHCq8Q+/lfE7KeKXlOTOK6zR/LA5SnWqgaN uxcsbGZVcHp6oz6IG/Sp9MRnTiEjOuiHuaq8AqZUDtaX1d65lywTq1clSdxg4dMP1x6N 0qoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVogvmSd7Ljyb7D9kVsHrtB573HPzpP1QBvm2jWZz92qiDb5oHO ckq4o7AdKe6j1iEnkojKozJOgIQr4gTNZAK+SqeU6Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxoAQPfSmpcd3842MPa4f+0xWX0g+9btx/3ni+9LDl1GY6j6wIM9eaYicWuNAUn+FD+xAFGw3GBNeEnoSSLfws=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c08d:: with SMTP id h13mr9978383ile.241.1572706323372; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 07:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 23:51:51 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be2cc905965e39cf"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:52:06 -0000

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 6:27 PM Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> Well, only if nodes implemented the PCP method, which they don't... but
> yes, this is true in theory.
> <#m_6103543545046494038_m_-2734443725323270902_>
> Given that the PCP method is a IETF defined mechanism and this document
> does put it on the top of the pecking order, I think it is better to use
> something like the alternate formulation that I suggested.
> If it is actually bad for nodes to implement PCP, it would be good if this
> were discussed.  I hadn’t heard this before, and in fact consider it a
> problem that routers implement the horribly complex uPnP protocol instead
> of PCP.
> I realize this is an inopportune time given that you are finishing a
> document, but if you have time can you expand on this a tiny bit?

I didn't say discovering the pref64 via PCP is bad, I said I don't think
hosts implement it. Note: what I am referring to is specifically only
discovering the pref64 via PCP. ISTM that whether hosts do or do not
implement other parts of PCP, and whether they should or not, is out of
scope for this document. What did you want to expand on specifically?