Re: 64share v2

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 56F4C3A098A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=joelhalpern.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 adZC8uR5fNR6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 A7CC63A098C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CVtF249Vdz1pCRK; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1605024774; bh=sOtHGKQ6TuWMO/OfHViGcL2S4cEHlj59wzmbW0424CY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=I313Ej3mmw8ziS9iLuM3z1jarYGmxMjECBVVblH3PJk/6SfF5xQwpQK5ptP9w+pjj YquWPp2/UhUTpZHOe9c7OGfsq64ELdY0PnNjKVgCg5GapcQ7jgEBFd0mzXUqelgiW+ WPQ7Xne+Nvw1FDCatryPC668ARn5w3kbjR7TMtpk=
X-Quarantine-ID: <00omFtQcuxO7>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CVtF16hVLz1pCPm; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: otroan@employees.org, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:12:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lHmWow5ESeca6Q-U0o6xt7PP5VM>
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 16:12:55 -0000

I don't care whether we use a flag or use the new universal-config 
option (assuming the WG advances the option.)  The exact mechanism is 
much less important to me than the point of enabling RA to do this job.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/10/2020 11:06 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> So we add a bit (as the earlier proposal did) to make clear that the intent in this case is to make the prefix available to the recipient. Over this pt-to-pt link.
> 
> Yes, or rather a new option. And text about the lifetime of the delegated prefix being decoupled of the link state.
> 
> Here is the required CDDL for the universal configuration option.
> 
> delegated-prefix = {
>      prefix : tstr
>      lifetime : uint
> }
> 
> And when I get really good at CDDL I can add prefix length range restriction to [0-64].
> 
> Ole
>