Re: 64share v2 Tue, 10 November 2020 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F423A0B21 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fngq0g3iJYz6 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D833A0AA3 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:d56d:6e55:37f1:848f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD69B4E11B3A; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D950F43B9FF8; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:53:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:53:15 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:53:19 -0000

> From what the operators have said, using the existing infrastructure for RA/SLAAC is important.  They have not needed DHCPv6.  So they want to be able to offer this using the tools they have deployed.  That seems reasonable to me.  Creating a new protocol for this would seem even worse.

Then you must have missed the point I made earlier.

What operators find attractive about the RA hack is a deployment model where the user's delegated prefix is taken out of a dynamic pool local to the box.
That deployment model results in ephemeral addresses. Which might work in an environment with tethering today (a client-only stub network, where user is expected to press refresh often). But it is not obvious how scaling that hack to multiple links/routers is possible. Without a massive cost to the rest of the ecosystem.

We already have a protocol so no need for a new one.