RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred:

As I've tried to point out, what I find in the draft is still insufficient. Comparing against just the DUID-UUID is not sufficient.

You need to explain why the existing forms (-LL, -LLT, -UUID) are insufficient; not just propose well I'll put my v6 address into the DUID-UUID as it is also 128 bits (but prefer not to overload as doesn't match UUID format). That's why you MUST NOT use DUID-UUID for your proposes (placing the IPv6 address into it).

As an example, look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6355#section-2 as that clearly provides details as why DUID-UUID has benefits over the 3 other formats at the time as why it should be a standardized format. You need material such as this. Without it, I would strongly recommend against this work because there is no rational for needing it (other than "hey I like this better.").

If you don't want to provide these arguments, then I highly recommend you use the DUID-EN under the AERO or whatever enterprise id you want to specify.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:38 PM
To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

Another high-level point. People seem to forget that this all got started with a *draft*, and the draft does go into detailed discussion that many of the questioners seem not to have read:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

The draft does discuss the relation to DUID-UUID at length. But, if people are fine with my putting a non-UUID 128-bit quantity in a DUID-UUID that is cool and I'm happy to do it - just let me know if that is what you want.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Templin (US), 
> Fred L
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 10:57 AM
> To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), 
> Sean M <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
> draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> To everyone who has commented, this is the particular exchange for 
> which I have been expecting but have not received follow-up discussion 
> on the answer I provided. I will not answer any more questions, 
> because I would simply be reiterating the same answer I provided in this exchange below.
> 
> If I get no follow-discussion (especially from Bob Hinden) I will 
> consider the DUID-V6ADDR idea "dead" and revert to using DUID-UUID to 
> encode 128-bit values of all types *even if they are not UUIDs*. Would 
> everyone be cool with that?
> 
> Fred
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Templin 
> > (US), Fred L
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:46 AM
> > To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), 
> > Sean M <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
> > draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:44 AM
> > > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>om>; dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; 
> > > IPv6 List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), Sean M 
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
> > > draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > >
> > > Fred,
> > >
> > > > On Jan 14, 2021, at 8:53 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob, I think the answer to your question is quite simple. 
> > > > RFC8415, Section 11 provides the motivation for having more than 
> > > > one type of DUID, and RFC6355 is an example of how new DUID types are added through standards action.
> > > > The precedent for adding new DUID types according to published 
> > > > procedures is therefore established.
> > >
> > > That wasn’t the question.   I didn’t ask if other types of DUID were allowed,
> >
> > A different poster (Ole) made an assertion that seemed to call into 
> > question why more than one DUID type is necessary - the above text 
> > was included to to justify why multiple DUIDs are provided by 
> > RFC8415, and why additional DUIDs can be added through future standards actions.
> >
> > > I asked:
> > >
> > >  "It's unclear to me what the purpose of putting an IPv6 address in the DUID is. Would you mind clarifying that?”
> > >
> > > Several other people asked similar questions.
> > >
> > > > In the specific instance of the proposal for establishing a new 
> > > > DUID type to carry an IPv6 address, the intended use case is for 
> > > > IPv6 address generation methods that produce an address that is 
> > > > designed to be a unique and stable identifier for the node, 
> > > > which meets the requirements of what can be used as a DUID per 
> > > > RFC8415, Section 11. This is certainly the case for (H)HIT per 
> > > > RFC7401 and draft-ietf-drip-rid, and I suppose the same case 
> > > > could be made for other cryptographically generated IPv6 
> > > > addresses such as RFC3972. Future IPv6 address generation 
> > > > methods (whether or not cryptographic) could also be designed to produce a unique and stable identifier for the node, and would be covered under the proposed new DUID type as well.
> > >
> > > Again, why do you need to use an IPv6 address for this?    Why can’t one of the current DUID approaches be used?
> >
> > [RFC7401] and [draft-ietf-drip-rid] are examples of IPv6 address 
> > generation methods that generate an address intended to be used as 
> > an *identity* but possible not as a *locator*. In other words, the 
> > address could appear in control message ID fields but may or may not 
> > be "ping'able" in the data plane. And, even if it were "ping'able", 
> > pervasive use of the address for data communications could present an unacceptable privacy exposure.
> >
> > > I note that DHCPv6 is usually used to get an IPv6 address, so using an IPv6 to get an IPv6 address seems very odd.
> >
> > Continuing from what I said above, yes this would entail using one 
> > type of IPv6 address (a pure identifier) to obtain one or more IPv6 
> > addresses or prefixes that can be used as the source/destination addresses for IPv6 data plane packets.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Before we go down the rathole of "IPv6 addresses must be 
> > > > assigned to an interface and not a node", please refer to the 
> > > > earlier messages on this thread where the suggestion was made 
> > > > that the stable and unique address could be assigned to a 
> > > > virtual interface (e.g., a loopback) and not an interface that 
> > > > may be subject to change such as due to a hot-swap of an 
> > > > interface card. Finally,
> > > > RFC4291 says the following:
> > > >
> > > >   "IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.
> > > >   An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface.  Since each
> > > >   interface belongs to a single node, any of that node's interfaces'
> > > >   unicast addresses may be used as an identifier for the node."
> > > >
> > > > From this text, we see that an IPv6 address may be used as an 
> > > > identifier for the node, which is exactly what a DUID is. And, 
> > > > an IPv6 address is unlike any of the existing DUID types, since 
> > > > by definition the address must be in the format specified by RFC4291. Hence, a new DUID type is requested.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> > > >> Templin (US), Fred L
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:19 AM
> > > >> To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> > > >> Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson 
> > > >> (US), Sean M <[e-mail]>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
> > > >> draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>
> > > >> Bob, I have been offline until just now due to windstorms that 
> > > >> knocked out power and Internet access in the Seattle area over 
> > > >> the past couple of days. I will reply to your question shortly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fred
> > > >>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 4:43 PM
> > > >>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> > > >>> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>om>; Ole Trøan 
> > > >>> <[e-mail]>rg>; dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 List
> > > >> <[e-mail]>rg>;
> > > >>> Dickson (US), Sean M <[e-mail]>
> > > >>> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fred,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:05 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ole,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:34 PM
> > > >>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>om>; dhcwg 
> > > >>>>> <[e-mail]>rg>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), 
> > > >>>>> Sean M <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
> > > >>>>> draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Fred,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> It's unclear to me what the purpose of putting an IPv6 address in the DUID is. Would you mind clarifying that?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I will add words to the next draft version.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> How about telling us now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bob
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Are you also aware of the following restriction in RFC8415:
> > > >>>>>  "Clients and servers MUST treat DUIDs as opaque values and 
> > > >>>>> MUST only  compare DUIDs for equality.  Clients and servers 
> > > >>>>> SHOULD NOT in any  other way interpret DUIDs."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yes, but then what is the reason why we currently have 4 DUID 
> > > >>>> types instead of just 1? If the text you quoted above is all 
> > > >>>> there was to it, and end of story, there would never be a 
> > > >>>> need to differentiate DUID-LL from DUID-LLA from DUID-EN from 
> > > >>>> DUID-UUID. So, this suggests there is more to the story than 
> > > >>>> just the short text you quoted above. And, the community has supported the definition of new DUIDs in the past (e.g., DUID-UUID).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks - Fred
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>> Ole
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 12 Jan 2021, at 19:40, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Bob, please see my subsequent reply to Eric Vyncke that discusses motivation:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yOfWHSnt36Hvjr44
> > > >>>>>> OERjK0OFvhw/ 
> > > >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/YZq_aPf1C82ZFT_
> > > >>>>>> bTdXOXVXTPW0/
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Per your comment, perhaps a new section on "motivation" 
> > > >>>>>> could be added to the draft?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks - Fred
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:22 AM
> > > >>>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>>>> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>om>; Mark Smith 
> > > >>>>>>> <[e-mail]>om>; dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; IPv6 
> > > >>>>>>> List <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), Sean M 
> > > >>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Fred,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Mark asked:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> "I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve 
> > > >>>>>>> or see any benefits of it. What is wrong with existing DUIDs?”
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I have the same question.   I read the draft but have no idea why this is needed.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Bob
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Mark, thanks for the comments. I gather your concern is 
> > > >>>>>>>> for the longevity and immutability of the IPv6 address 
> > > >>>>>>>> that would go into the DUID, since DUIDs are meant to 
> > > >>>>>>>> identify the device and not change over time. But, there 
> > > >>>>>>>> are IPv6 address generation methods that generate 
> > > >>>>>>>> addresses not for the purpose of assigning them to a 
> > > >>>>>>>> physical interface (e.g., Ethernet, WiFi and the like), 
> > > >>>>>>>> but instead to provide a unique node ID for the device 
> > > >>>>>>>> that never changes [RFC7401][draft-ietf-drip-rid]. Also, 
> > > >>>>>>>> [RFC7721] mentions several other IPv6 address generation methods that could be considered for use for generating a unique node ID, and other IPv6 address generation methods intended to create a unique node ID could be defined in the future.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> So, again, this is not about using an IPv6 address 
> > > >>>>>>>> assigned to a physical interface as a DUID; it is about 
> > > >>>>>>>> using an IPv6 address that was intentionally generated to be a unique identifier for the node and may also be assigned to a virtual interface.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks - Fred
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>> From: Mark Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:32 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; dhcwg <[e-mail]>rg>; Dickson (US), 
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sean M <[e-mail]>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: 
> > > >>>>>>>>> draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve 
> > > >>>>>>>>> or see any benefits of it. What is wrong with existing DUIDs?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> DHCP Unique IDentifiers are, per RFC 8415,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> "...  designed to be unique across all DHCP clients and 
> > > >>>>>>>>> servers, and stable for any specific client or server.  
> > > >>>>>>>>> That is, the DUID used by a client or server SHOULD NOT 
> > > >>>>>>>>> change over time if at all possible; for example, a 
> > > >>>>>>>>> device's DUID should not change as a result of a change 
> > > >>>>>>>>> in the device's network hardware or changes to virtual 
> > > >>>>>>>>> interfaces (e.g.,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Mrugalski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 32]
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> RFC 8415                      DHCP for IPv6                November 2018
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> logical PPP (over Ethernet) interfaces that may come and 
> > > >>>>>>>>> go in Customer Premises Equipment routers).  The client 
> > > >>>>>>>>> may change its DUID as specified in [RFC7844]."
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The only IPv6 address that I can think of that might 
> > > >>>>>>>>> come close to meeting those requirements would be an 
> > > >>>>>>>>> EUI-64 derived Link-Local address, and that is assuming 
> > > >>>>>>>>> that the EUI-64/hardware MAC address never changes. MAC 
> > > >>>>>>>>> address randomisation and the RFC8064 recommendation for 
> > > >>>>>>>>> use of RFC7217 for SLAAC means that Link-Local addresses 
> > > >>>>>>>>> may not meet the DUID requirements above either (RFC7217 
> > > >>>>>>>>> can result in link-specific link-local addresses 
> > > >>>>>>>>> (specifically the IID portion is link specifc), even though the link-local prefix itself is constant across all links).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> There's also a circular dependency if the DUID is based 
> > > >>>>>>>>> on a GUA or ULA address and DHCPv6 is to then be used 
> > > >>>>>>>>> for stateful GAU/ULA address assignment, unless you 
> > > >>>>>>>>> mandated that SLAAC and stateful DHCPv6 are used in 
> > > >>>>>>>>> parallel so that SLAAC could be used to derive the DUID 
> > > >>>>>>>>> that is then used to acquire further ULA/GUA addresses via stateful DHCPv6 IA_NAs and IA_TAs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> "The DUID-V6ADDR may appear in DHCPv6 and/or other 
> > > >>>>>>>>> protocol control messages (such as IPv6 ND) within a 
> > > >>>>>>>>> service domain when a unique ID based on an IPv6 address is required."
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> In the latter case, why not use IPv6 addresses 
> > > >>>>>>>>> themselves? Using
> > > >>>>>>>>> DHCPv6 Unique Identifiers outside of the DHCP protocol 
> > > >>>>>>>>> would be an abuse of a DUID.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Mark.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 05:47, Templin (US), Fred L 
> > > >>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, more and more IPv6 address generation methods are 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> being specified that intend to generate IPv6 addresses 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> that are highly likely to be unique on either a global 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> scale or unique within a bounded service domain. So 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> much so, that some address generation methods intend for the IPv6 addresses to be usable as node identifiers.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Recognizing this, this document proposes a new DHCPv6 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> DUID type known as "DHCP-V6ADDR" that includes an IPv6 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> address in the body of the DUID. In this way, IPv6 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> addresses produced by address generation methods 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> intending to generate a node ID can be used as unique 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> identifiers in DHCPv6 message exchanges. This would introduce a single new DUID type, for which the IANA allocation policy is  "standards action".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Alternatively, a separate DUID type could be allocated 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for each IPv6 address generation method. However, that 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> approach may result in additional IANA allocations and 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> would require implementation updates every time a new 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> address generation method is specified. Hence, a single generic DUID type for all IPv6 generation methods is proposed, but open for discussion.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Comments on the list welcome.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Fred
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>> From: I-D-Announce 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 10:21 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>     Title           : The IPv6 Address-based DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-V6ADDR)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>     Author          : Fred L. Templin
> > > >>>>>>>>>>     Filename        : draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> > > >>>>>>>>>>     Pages           : 7
> > > >>>>>>>>>>     Date            : 2021-01-11
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This document defines a new DHCPv6 Unique Identifier 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (DUID) type called DUID-V6ADDR that contains a single 128 bit IPv6 address.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> DUID-V6ADDR makes it possible for devices to use 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> suitably-derived unique IPv6 addresses to identify 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> themselves to DHCPv6 servers and/or other network nodes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-duid-ipv
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 6/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-dui
> > > >>>>>>>>>> d-ipv6-01
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-templin-duid-ip
> > > >>>>>>>>>> v6-01
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list [e-mail] 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Internet-Draft directories: 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] Administrative Requests: 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------------
> > > >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>> ----------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list 
> > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail] Administrative Requests: 
> > > >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>> -----------
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>> --------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list 
> > > >>>>>> [e-mail] Administrative Requests: 
> > > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>> ---------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> dhcwg mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------