Re: Extending a /64

otroan@employees.org Sun, 08 November 2020 13:57 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 D8D843A02BD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:57:15 -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 YFzgis1RvBjL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBCF73A02BB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:6dd4:118e:ac3a:172f]) (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 023354E11B3D; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 13:57:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AE4438A46F; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 14:57:11 +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: Extending a /64
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <m1kbkaI-0000ImC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 14:57:11 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDD054A8-E40A-4FAC-998B-C5835D5D9CB1@employees.org>
References: <m1kbkaI-0000ImC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cHfz3cT087uxh2loVIugTAm9K8E>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 13:57:16 -0000

Philip,

>> A problem described in variable-slaac is:
>> 
>> "It should be possible to extend an end-user network that is only
>> assigned a /64"
>> 
>> I believe that is a problem worth looking at.  This problem is not
>> only restricted to the mobile access case, think connecting a host
>> with VMs to a link.
> 
> I don't quite understand the problem statement.

The problem is from the perspective of an end-user.
What should an end-user do if the only thing available on that link is a /64.

That problem isn't just restricted to mobile operators.
For example if I connect a host with VMs to my employer's network, I cannot extend it. No DHCPv6-PD is supported. Nor HNCP.
This works "perfectly" fine for IPv4.

While I think it's perfectly fine to not accept that this is a problem, and require all network operators be it Enterprise or SPs to support DHCPv6-PD and HNCP.
It might be worth taking a second look at that.

And note that extending the /64 boundary doesn't really solve this. At least not in a very non-hackish way.

Best regards,
Ole