Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 02 November 2019 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 E1125120987 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 02:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 U1m4JdyOo7_I for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 02:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D735121558 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id m125so12996357qkd.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ybYBY1oJEskfTcTFCztfKOuqnqL+Yaj9jGxzdg0Zq/o=; b=RGv7pEg4QGfy7E7kRIdgCHTD3HBTWlV/nQhcvicMwWbqx8+FSVVbju4LAn8PMXw+65 Dj7XDzO/fWJlBUAORfqKxfqJxns1hH5Q/UXRhMnBdXqQCd/Tpi+4um4dMKQBuFL+DLQD mpSDHnzThmf+H4wNSEW53xGRJFXAZaTFjYl20Sqv65/VxJzKB4dMdnS9TpxNBOLR8J3i Mz+WHRvItKP/tl5ibb8l0hywec303Gi+CsyAvIcSu7Y1TWp1dHoGklUd6z8xS0jcR02o yROS9Hm+Vd661/1YeGBsIC2XwoqWmVIV6UKLKK2A3tH9F2rSTJ1EOMB/KuxAf/7zqiDE rVuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ybYBY1oJEskfTcTFCztfKOuqnqL+Yaj9jGxzdg0Zq/o=; b=ZGnSHhwQNnLkDvX5shTD88oxxyqY92GajVgfk4nebemev9CDU5bsn7MDfS+ws/PXcF oUIsogjT3esWe2piHudZ+SfwCccpztYc4fSs0t1y126m7tcDWaIHC94UKe1HZJRLhTrq J0+rZ1rMXkbW6ndkMqIhHvum8Tlc9+l3JOEm9C+WTKSDceE1qPKYMBHJ1HW6leWxhJ1M gBh+INB03FC1x2yVG1ttf6hoL4nXUgYwkcFHSbHjgaBq8qxagC0OYFNZXUjrJC2hYEe+ 2rfRxoLC6aZ7XjEriHfFDwTv1lpBg6pq/NVvxZGoQw+NNo2zbw2vySuVKvIov3HlwFYs 6cVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX7WYKoEB2H127RB9OqHkRklHJ5u6HNwJWYBkc77LsD78fAPybq 5Lsw+IENWkYBXYShWgurdP/7R02E67NFiQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzllgBi49PXCMa02hoVYNVFwz0GY+RkRMM4iL8ersYLqz3p3Pq40R2D9B1zqIl3kKtryKUNyA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a250:: with SMTP id l77mr14367632qke.455.1572686837606; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:dfc:35a2:a171:fe62? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:dfc:35a2:a171:fe62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm4002184qtq.10.2019.11.02.02.27.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2019 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2E35951A-EF93-4125-A8DA-984742B6971A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:27:16 -0400
Message-Id: <2F46F0F9-ECF0-41D9-9817-983641EEAC7F@fugue.com>
References: <7E0096AC-9EBC-4D82-AF22-349311EA46CE@kaloom.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7E0096AC-9EBC-4D82-AF22-349311EA46CE@kaloom.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17B84)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jRQ06T4mrcYLWvByPl7UZrn6frs>
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 09:27:58 -0000

On Nov 2, 2019, at 12:12 AM, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>; wrote:
> 
>> Well, only if nodes implemented the PCP method, which they don't... but yes, this is true in theory.
> 
> Given that the PCP method is a IETF defined mechanism and this document does put it on the top of the pecking order, I think it is better to use something like the alternate formulation that I suggested.

If it is actually bad for nodes to implement PCP, it would be good if this were discussed.  I hadn’t heard this before, and in fact consider it a problem that routers implement the horribly complex uPnP protocol instead of PCP.

I realize this is an inopportune time given that you are finishing a document, but if you have time can you expand on this a tiny bit?