Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 01:40 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 E803F127275 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:15 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 FQ718jekoQtv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (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 EE5F71205F0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l24so773384pfj.6 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ZDGEFmgMwXKGk5dUgjN0Qxdo2L571Upmt44l5MsuBvc=; b=oLOmnoooykiroPuIYqckYyqvqweNDs9C/9Ljl1+7BmNdq+LYZsGVQB1qod5EEpkvnb 79gSiK3mV0qlGWjSmMYRyAcwsdPHQgRKgEyKxYK2ju+5+CYgyYt6andvpBtKFxMlDMqr XVvHvmczw/kYZnWF7GKAW1EunrXDr5jZ4f5gx7ZFB3iyRZO9Lm4T6D1ulan6rD2vIvFG ZSNdRj+2EcoHrTKaSQ9jooFpz+KOCYl6KrfQWLy+Zey7pUcFxGAbNT3eeI91pfrAN/wN DvjxenXH7580wKJK0U+Vi800Q2guO3lRZvdJimF+CyNf+/FxcGJhBoak5B9q2/chQECf BYbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ZDGEFmgMwXKGk5dUgjN0Qxdo2L571Upmt44l5MsuBvc=; b=e2VLBLwUAnn2M5RLOe584puwIqFUpnUaefgMTSPchEf0qrdVWRXWDymne5zcOohl6Z p4JGLlOG0dqsf/XKZ1Puuw5VYs+EU3noGcDNhA9bSRH44J4c3fKijBXGpqxWQksKwkqH 1p4Ympe73L62hFS2XeQ/PIGWXWJFPc7tuJvt7WeFCDOEYKZImg4oDUyAd81K8kI2saV2 rulBHoF/K20dcuo18b7s0Tkg3VmS0iQ+ztaSpRob+ZN2k7rCJdWRxG8AhBCMw+24viau 1FpvFNgR0csrFpyDoJIikmH8mdt9dzHkxEPD46Dyw9LiH36ZibHWTIqVR4gmc4QdSCoA 7uMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6SN2O3BDq/yMdM4RYvtEjfL59HDannVJVC2WQivCzAbN2Gw/YV kJ1TQ1XP9jMOyPvYNQtCZ4tzCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZFz87hGT45XlEbtu9UvbU3jj0SfigY6WvlgDoJwxkUSd5fE3pgiEcPrqqLFaYQDWpPzjIimw==
X-Received: by 10.84.254.13 with SMTP id b13mr10577422plm.363.1510623612520; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:2552:171a:b18:8a8c? ([2001:67c:1232:144:2552:171a:b18:8a8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f11sm34814520pfd.82.2017.11.13.17.40.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <72ECE18B-5247-4D00-AF4C-763881929DD3@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3F1257E-F6C2-48D4-BB38-5373889095CE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:40:09 +0800
In-Reply-To: <m1eEGU6-0000GEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-8@u-1.phicoh.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com> <BBAB48C0-384B-4380-9359-7965C7C61D58@employees.org> <4b7e8e53-ea7a-f84d-92cf-a9a113c200ce@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1NG93Jv7E6hKY4BKApwJg6uG0wAgUL74cw1Fb5VsKnUg@mail.gmail.com> <14d489ec-0b28-8fe5-e28c-35a1f4fc15de@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPb8vOxfUVk-6sQNGpftegPCgb+j3OyGD55rmCado+VZw@mail.gmail.com> <a4a380b0-d69c-1c2c-fedc-0a3da2a8060a@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPg=qOpiwJ29Bq92m2RfZ-VDJtLWb-GgZV7bXP6iELiRA@mail.gmail.com> <d86e4678-7634 -5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaMKnB8BjHHOqAA3Fj+Ue8KtoW7kPwQLOHu93vivA4Lugg@mail.gmail.com> <m1eEGU6-0000GEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tEIhsKJB9RbwMKPRbX5acuBhEuM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 14 Nov 2017 01:40:16 -0000

On Nov 13, 2017, at 11:17 PM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-8@u-1.phicoh.com>; wrote:
> There is an interesting dynamics in that any new feature for RA that is a 
> essentially a duplicate from what already exists in DHCPv6 gets accepted,
> but a simple feature like a default router option in DHCPv6 gets rejected
> time and time again because that feature is already provided by RA.

This is actually a reflection of the consensus that Lorenzo mentioned earlier: that we do not recommend DHCPv6-only networks.   Also, it is not true that there is no pushback when new options are proposed for RA.