Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 BEB75129518 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:14:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 hqO_0dToLF8Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99D57129513 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v23DEYKc005591 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:14:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7978B209C31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:14:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC27209C1E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:14:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v23DEYIT016350 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:14:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAKD1Yr0qwwfH2a2ND7Va7tHigVTQ=iWkEwicxhTYpjuYMJnARg@mail.gmail.com> <58B6A02E.50501@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3j88RP=Hc3Xa-cMwOUZ1Td1uej0AHsNEKoAchoCe-ghQ@mail.gmail.com> <58B74D22.5010104@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3Du9U8UF98dhFSG6RBmTVdP5zqbpmYiraWejj_aLaY6A@mail.gmail.com> <58B89AD3.3000806@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3yXsntsJXR2xSU9P2bQibXPhH_XAMQkktX0_hM=1xQHw@mail.gmail.com> <20170303102734.GW1024@Vurt.local> <B99A2FEF-E883-4B7F-A01B-D151B3934255@employees.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ae0ee21d-5853-905e-e346-53b3576e5192@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:14:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B99A2FEF-E883-4B7F-A01B-D151B3934255@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xhRHGRHiA2tgd3M6vMTCaZTA4MI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:14:38 -0000

Le 03/03/2017 à 12:18, otroan@employees.org a écrit :
> Job,
>
> [...]
>
>> It is upsetting that this information needs to be repeated over and
>> over again. Why are you not listening? The last decennia has
>> already proven that flexibility is a necessity to operate the
>> networks.
>
> of course. at the same time please remember that there is significant
> distrust towards the operators.

I agree.

One view at a certain operator is that the deployed 3GPP Release number
does not support DHCPv6-PD for end users.  As such that view can only be
interpreted as an invitation to wait for the next release of 3GPP
Release before hoping to see DHCPv6-PD on the smartphone.  With no
guarantee whatsoever.

Until then what can one do to support multiple scalable IPv6 subnets at
the edges of 3GPP networks?  Use NAT66? Make a 65 SLAAC?  Mandate /65
DHCPv6 addresses on end devices tainted by fe80::/64?

None sounds RECOMMENDED.

Alex


> if we as the users gave in now, will you turn around and charge me by
> the address tomorrow?
>
> as have been mentioned before the hard part is to find text that is
> clear on the policy, allows for new innovations and use of ILNP, /64
>  to the host, NPT66, but also recognises that I can configure /128s,
>  or that I on my laptop split a /64 into /80s for each of my VMs...
>
> Cheers, Ole
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>