IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 1B9663A0C5D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 chIE3ffXIh-X for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1B63A115F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kcq2A-0000FxC; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:19:34 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kcq2A-0000FxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: 64share v2
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <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> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com> <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0tDTSH2F4=ZsdMJREy1k6equ9mZV0Au1bJPmKuzxeYVA@mail.gmail.com> <43C449AD-D116-4452-A4F2-79AE5A76539F@employees.org> <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111248460.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C979855B-894F-4BB8-8CE9-FDDD4C51AB68@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111337570.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr1JJkCN=EJrYbffHQCBazT2Sky2wgWHsiKnztKWMKgJJg@mail.gmail. com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:52:36 +0900 ." <CAKD1Yr1JJkCN=EJrYbffHQCBazT2Sky2wgWHsiKnztKWMKgJJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:19:33 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_b_U32kby_bEYdGcE4hV9h57BtQ>
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 13:19:52 -0000

>Do we really need to solve this problem in order to solve the problem of
>how to distribute the information? Or rather - do we need to solve the
>problems together, in the same draft?

We have a problem with DHCPv6 PD relays and soft state getting
lost. We have quite a few drafts related to RAs and renumbering.

Maybe we should first figure out how it should work, before we specify
bits on the wire.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email