Re: 64share v2
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 10 November 2020 12:29 UTC
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 EEB223A0A93 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:29:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 AlRmh3frglqH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687283A0A87 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 10A2FB1; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:29:17 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605011357; bh=/s4neGChoqpuo1iqMYWX5TTC2Fr9/Kq7ownS2Ia8CG0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=3KyC6LmFpQp5Rhd+Bb9zvdTMqkNYSQRqAjEG4tvRXJRfHNzbrkLHoTNSsMGRtm3+4 zqgnKsGCZlQ9f62VOVIMmQOJ0Z8FgLe/wffFiVCnVhv5NTFX/IemG8IcsMapFeDZEh Ag5jszcFbSPNSeN3hCATzsc7ISS+RDu90BqXq4iA=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF8DB0; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:29:17 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:29:17 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: otroan@employees.org
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <164BCB66-5B0F-4BBF-AB0B-417B95F4431F@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011101324320.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com> <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0h9=7p+n=qnH1o1EHqtPrsaYebgvHciOJpP3=iXgNgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0C739112-D8EA-42C3-BEFD-88C014D5BCD0@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3Xr2t8yN40kmq6S+gSMPMDkm6cVXaVM+doW-xPo_BTrQ@mail.gmail.com> <55A3AF63-83FF-4D1B-8B18-AD2E7C35E441@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011101234290.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se> <164BCB66-5B0F-4BBF-AB0B-417B95F4431F@employees.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aXEQkpqc-dI05KeDZZ8aKS1sIsU>
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:29:21 -0000
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, otroan@employees.org wrote: > But you see the difference right? > RA configuration tied to link state. PD assignment not. > > Obviously both can be misconfigured. But as I think we have experienced. Getting the defaults correct, both in standards, implementations and understanding is important. I've experienced internet connections where the PPPoE session was forcefully bounced by ISP once per 24 hours and you received a new DHCP based address when it came up again. True for both IPv4 and IPv6. So it makes no difference to me. In real world, neither RA or DHCP based methods keep their promise (valid/lifetimes) and they can both be forced to be tied to a link state. It's all up to what the receiver is configured to do about this information, and we're already trying to figure out how RA/DHCP should be tied together. If someone says "ships in the dark" again I don't know what to say, operationally they shouldn't be. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
- 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Mark Smith
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Bob Hinden
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Joel Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] 64share v2 otroan
- Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Ca By
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Erik Kline
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] otroan
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- RE: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 otroan
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: 64share v2 Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Philip Homburg
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] otroan
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 神明達哉
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Gyan Mishra
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Philip Homburg
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] otroan
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Philip Homburg
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] otroan
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Philip Homburg
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Fernando Gont
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Fernando Gont
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Fernando Gont
- Re: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2] Fernando Gont
- Re: 64share v2 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: 64share v2 Alexandre Petrescu