Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 09 November 2020 21:12 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 B3BEC3A14B8; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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=boeing.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 gUMAwQ7a9hFJ; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.20.194]) (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 6E3F03A14B6; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 0A9LCGhf058240; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1604956344; bh=S7x9zc7BiQcUJHAN67oBNrt+crys9aDlIH+yI7h5WW4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=soQLw4JMS1elmHwcGwCits9vaLOp0thgB88mGTwSivccA6/ZA0/kW9si8ueeX/QkB ChrZNFtOHh5JXGK7R4BRWUhpm9sonNfLFwrF//su/i1MyOceueUBOx5x2JqlcZJ2ZJ Q+dLE/Hln9fY1FyJR2KXSqkXFKqOUrwlohAY7Hgydbf7WbtK/C4klm26Qc447laf+O iGX7JeCRUODGB0fmL8nNsPkjQX9lYdp3If6sL6iylodu41o6ROfvSNLT3cAT4c67U3 LujmgiBAMj+NDIgurj/sXDEdZhHLwncqvUVn4iiLjAMG7ykn9egEkksQZEPRka50dG e+C8LdqA1tFNw==
Received: from XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.110]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 0A9LCEbg058210 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:15 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:13 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:12:13 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org>, "bs7652@att.com" <bs7652@att.com>
CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine
Thread-Topic: DHCPv6-PD is fine
Thread-Index: Ada23FunlCA25DTCRH2QjN3TcGyuSw==
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 21:12:13 +0000
Message-ID: <eb8c6a234a324017ab1b3754329f6f4e@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 4DD85F5F803DE464EB20FBED3CD61CD9F609BA4DCF2069D685768C5A0F9617162000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mqeu3Vop7x00UEGdK6m6JNYqKco>
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 21:12:49 -0000
Please note - there are several very good and mature DHCPv6 server platforms available today, and I think the only challenge would be to choose among multiple good alternatives. I don't think we need to invent any new services; just a new way of invoking the services we already have. Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Havard Eidnes > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2020 1:01 PM > To: bs7652@att.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine > > This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know that the content is safe. > > > >> From what I've been reading in this thread, in the mobile > >> world the problem isn't DHCPv6-PD, but the cellular world > >> having not adopted it, or even blocked it (ref discussion of > >> mobile modems blocking DHCP packets). > > Is this lack of flexibility for all intents and purposes > imprinted into silicon? That would ... be an extremely effective > road-block for practical deployment if one wanted to make a > change where DHCP should additionally be used. > > >> For clarity, is there a problem with DHCPv6-PD, or is there a > >> problem with the mobile world not supporting it for whatever > >> reason ? > >> > >> The reason I ask is that if it's the latter, then the response > >> to "it doesn't work, we need to change something" is that you > >> need to go to the mobile industry and tell them to fix their > >> ****. > > > > Please don't take this personally, but, IMO, this is exactly > > the attitude that has brought us to this point. The IETF > > participants think IETF is in a position to dictate and think > > they know better how to operate and deploy a network than the > > operators. > > An alternative perspective could be that the mobile industry > collectively refused to cooperate for "whatever reason", and now > come back at the IETF without in detail explaining why DHCPv6-PD > "didn't work out", but instead want new protocol development to > essentially solve the same problem in another manner, using a > different protocol? We all here know how enthusiastic the IETF > is in solving the same problem with multiple protocols, ref. the > long-standing controversy over address configuration in IPv6. > > Also, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to claim that the > IETF controls the development and standardization of Internet > protocols done through the IETF? > > > Availability of equipment that implements features, complexity > > of legacy OSS/BSS systems, and complexity of deploying multiple > > methods of configuration (to make everyone happy) are 100% > > irrelevant and operators should simply spend whatever amount is > > needed to do exactly what IETF dictates. > > Now, now... Imagine for a moment that a new protocol or protocol > variant was developed and standardized through the IETF for > handing out larger address blocks to customers. How would > deploying that imagined new protocol be any easier with respect > to the above mentioned complexities or obstacles than doing the > same with an already standardized protocol? (However, if DHCP is > in essence "blocked by hardware", that makes that avenue for all > intents and purposes unusable in that particular use case. Not > sure I'd blame the IETF for that one, though.) > > Or .. I may not understand what you are saying here. Are you > implicitly saying that "This isn't a problem worth solving" or > "This problem costs too much to solve now"? I think I'm > confused. > > > I've suggested engaging and collaborating with other SDOs where > > operators prefer to do their work. But that suggestion clearly > > has no support here. > > Building organizational-level collaboration and the needed mutual > respect, and overcoming the obvious cultural impedance mismatch > is decidedly a two-way street. I'm not sure it's fair to put all > the blame on the IETF here. > > Regards, > > - HÃ¥vard > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- DHCPv6-PD is fine Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Simon Hobson
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: DHCPv6-PD is fine STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Philip Homburg
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine tony.whyman
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Havard Eidnes
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Ted Lemon
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Havard Eidnes
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: DHCPv6-PD is fine Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Alexandre Petrescu