IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

otroan@employees.org Tue, 10 November 2020 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 58F423A0B21 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fngq0g3iJYz6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D833A0AA3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (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 clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD69B4E11B3A; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (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 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:53:15 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org>
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> <62bc0e56-85b8-42ea-c46b-4f2205dc435f@joelhalpern.com> <28C2E56B-1443-480A-B3D1-82E0F8CC0EC7@employees.org> <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/b5Rys5xIGXL1ufOdx3sr93vBrrk>
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 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.

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email