IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso

otroan@employees.org Thu, 19 November 2020 15:33 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 402813A03F8; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:33:26 -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 c5hlIJcueskq; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:33:24 -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 BD1B13A0ADF; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:8134:785f:b705:6f79]) (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 4B3C64E11AFD; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:33:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54C645A0782; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:33:21 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3bCss9y7cT6w2i+LKWBh1viPSXBM-CTaK+GVDyPS2D8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:33:21 +0100
Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D7C4A75-ABB6-4194-9834-9BC898EAC8A9@employees.org>
References: <CABNhwV3fj-e9bEemivcNovnD3SZvKm8ZjFKp7BmusnPcgyznFQ@mail.gmail.com> <7ED24CC7-A719-4E9B-A5DC-3BA8EA7E3929@consulintel.es> <CABNhwV19neE3U_AisNp2nDUF4bWB8P8xHNEznDevZLE9amFTRA@mail.gmail.com> <0F78C18B-7AD6-4AC7-AF1F-CA1ADCDEA6AB@employees.org> <CABNhwV3bCss9y7cT6w2i+LKWBh1viPSXBM-CTaK+GVDyPS2D8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W4hVq-LHQ-MYKTuAQ9ZqfvcPvis>
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:33:26 -0000


> On 19 Nov 2020, at 14:58, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You would need a new option. It would likely be useful for the requesting router to indicate interest in the option. Even hinting at what prefix size it was expecting.
> Now can you explain to me again the reasons why this approach is better than using the existing DHPCv6 protocol packets?
> 
>     3GPP gateway does not support DHCPv6

3GPP gateway doesn't support new option. What's your point?

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email