Re: 64share v2

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 11 November 2020 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA9C3A0EFC for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:48:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 qs1Gb_sQs__w for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0626D3A0EFB for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e17so1296443ili.5 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:48:46 -0800 (PST)
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=LkCYcmBcVhSbPUTsRx9B1RThiU7R/Etln+E2tLy69Dg=; b=rZUKkFRiVkKhoa8iyWwWxjVEch41QoqzfWNtH849E187RDsjnyI9+8bG3saZaRZGuH YakT/NJ5zCScwSwXyQoiVAlhz001r5vYdjVunnOIaPsocpmu2u2rOZiv0psq6ibyhg7s 8jun52crF1JK9LG1GrA6uhUvPv5lG+5vNxkm4W3y6IqcxgLTnfSDfsRNxppDNc4Y4FZE wCKO/n62qrwvmPYqSL9XZGcJUL12J7TSVzQn3XI/ZCfxmz5W9rnuOFa61vCMi8BN3JIP 9AVJhuUmyMvFY68xgqULLQNrNgMAune8MSsXoE1ZhVA+vmUr3XbRSlNIdCj/m8JZyVbK /mAQ==
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=LkCYcmBcVhSbPUTsRx9B1RThiU7R/Etln+E2tLy69Dg=; b=Untk+Ch02wOk4RTkb3b9fxNyasKLrj08rLIYt2OTumnTu/Ne5yahWToNuyiVaMxgzv ccGufu2K9vnajNwsb/HofwILbR+mGmADe+l9iX1HYDXWP8qOsZ3rUmw9ue1ZuExN/wwN NhsOsvfJCYmeOi5hCHa52wWJcpfG2SNaKy0kIHAdx20zett5Jnx/BHU8LMM8Un6uSnDJ pe58Glq4vQopg1M+XO4bJY52mD7H+kIKLYT7IrMrL6RCnA0b0x+Sg/CrWZDB6v/S0159 nWoJzWz/kOWUlo2/PoLFcqcJwS1q8MFWQJxnz8GNHoAPL3lTrA8Nlt4YJJ4hto+l357m LXZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533H6iNBJwK/T7yitlA3MvWvsElaPf1XvKDULqV79ID8YSmhChRP BSodBvbbdbPQRGQKjoCZ+o0eDNVSVLGo9TwpdBfpvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvtyZiygTW4dTSXGC2t6zwIKTj3AZMPTerFTcU0vZv+kw66O2glQZ48/DT7/HLxPts3GWkX1/wqHleH/HDE7I=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:4850:: with SMTP id v77mr2134929ila.229.1605084526084; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:48:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:48:34 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: Ole Troan <>
Cc: Ca By <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003671405b3d0ddfb"
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:48:49 -0000

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 4:28 PM <> wrote:

>  - 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

+1. We can't just change the length of the PIO from 64 to 60, since this is
really not the same as a PIO. A PIO specifies "the prefixes that are
on-link and/or are used for stateless address autoconfiguration". Here, the
prefixes are not on-link, and any non-/64 PIO can't be used for autoconf
anyway, because for global addresses, IIDs are 64 bits long. If we just
change the PIO from /64 to /60, IPv6 on existing mobile devices will just
stop working. Also, the A and L bits in the PIO are meaningless. If the
network is delegating a /60 prefix to a mobile device, it makes no sense to
say "you can have this entire /60 but nothing in it can use autoconf", or
even "you can have this /60 and autoconf is available on it".

>  - 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.

Personally I don't think we need a way to do this. For the problem at hand,
the semantics of RAs are fine, it's the semantics of the PIO that don't
meet the needs.

>  - You need to clarify host/router behaviour in that you now make the
> RS/RA behaviour between routers.

Not sure that necessarily needs to be added here. After all, we
published RFC 7278 without it, and the problem is basically the same. And
RFC 6204/7084 (IPv6 CE routers) already expects such routers to listen to

>  - You should require a mechanism for the CE to verify forwarding state in
> the PE. We missed that in 3315.

I don't think this is a problem in mobile networks. Certainly, I don't
think we currently have anything along these lines for IPv4 addresses or
IPv6 /64s.

Instead, I think we should say that the prefix MUST be a superset of a
prefix that already has a PIO with A=1. That would make failure modes very