IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Sun, 16 July 2017 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 6E12713178E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] 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 8fkpkshR0fcb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (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 7457E12EC06 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w4so10833502wrb.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=e2YdrsUOA1UCDK2CN9VJ03OS8MFSjzerf99/XGrN6e8=; b=Ij0mFq9faBb5ykThlrQddj3kkTv3amYdgQhQ0NtgGIQm32kWNLvwD4rXHyIrbfW3uj VJ3v9x50K7fF8hYfx0rKYYN3VYL9UUcht9+WTXgzAPTlGiY+Ib/3nZ2kOuu/iQxvmCYX EzQM35ghHlhZBbN26O0gmNVl3ZGegjRLv0SiK3QfSwVqQ/H6TL8OhmKir/19OgnoUPoC q5UjqVQDOZMG4gbFXTmxv8LRMtMMmzLnKok0hVxzOHpVqU/3tWHAPeAazGabZd4baNui 7z8YerbK0tuBGeUwi0HJZ6STrbAZ7WUVKRGCrzpJLf5BXJ0gpTRqOq3gk9uJ6zVpe3aB 5bSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113ZCLmJDX0JzwcijhnV3YjkrT466b41Cqo1FrbplVTvBmivUfKa 7mZtWSBBiqbx5w3KL2ZymA==
X-Received: by 10.223.139.21 with SMTP id n21mr8501080wra.42.1500207137760; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([62.168.35.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y35sm14720544wrc.51.2017.07.16.05.12.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:12:08 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis@tools.ietf.org, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Message-ID: <20170716121208.wns32djqm43jmn6u@Vurt.local>
References: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr25jk22qTTqJ-RoxOVTu7=e=vQWWLQZnek-HGCKaZgU=w@mail.gmail.com> <596B4BE1.7020807@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1W0+d-Bj9daqXUsyAEaNE6RHHZBwJ_6SzT0sGhZXdDMw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1W0+d-Bj9daqXUsyAEaNE6RHHZBwJ_6SzT0sGhZXdDMw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tUW_x-l7bWLXJEwTOc7XyZnGeuo>
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:12:21 -0000

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:25:10PM +0200, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> > The self-selection addressing model does not suit the deployment
> > requirements for many types of ipv6 networks, including enterprise,
> > provider hosting, terrestrial access networks (e.g. docsis / gpon /
> > ipoe) and others. If the recommendation for dhcpv6 is dropped, then
> > there is no recommended ietf model for operator-assigned addressing,
> > and this would leave a glaring hole in the ipv6 host specification.
> 
> That's a fair opinion to hold, but the fact of the matter is that a
> SHOULD for DHCPv6 conflicts with RFC 7934 and RFC 7844.

I think that the words 'opinion' and 'fact' may need to be swapped
around in the above sentence. Operator-assigned addressing should not be
left out or discouraged.

Kind regards,

Job

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email