Re: 64share v2

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 12 November 2020 09:09 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 ACCEB3A1014 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:09:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.67
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 TYlAJ76bbqBV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 023B43A1011 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AC99Raw025574 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:09:27 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BFE62055CB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126402055B2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AC99Q7B028144 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:09:27 +0100
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQaMCS+T-6pV=c7M_DL=qCYSdqrsemE8vUYYyqm5Rv32A@mail.gmail.com> <9dd54921-372f-f029-41ec-8eb00c12158f@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05C_rbzigG8H3TbF3NkGg6oj7L4+LVtASdVmpdZ2Aaeg@mail.gmail.com> <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2ReWf5SHKWJL6=zx8kKb92yq0YbUcBiu_kJ-t=e8BDhg@mail.gmail.com> <a0196c54-cd33-2cc8-45e3-ead6e14ef9da@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8248deb4-88b3-6521-381a-c536043cd0b5@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:09:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a0196c54-cd33-2cc8-45e3-ead6e14ef9da@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zvrWRegQ6DZwrbetAVk8MN-uMsE>
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:09:31 -0000


Le 12/11/2020 à 03:36, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 12-Nov-20 14:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 5:21 AM Brian E Carpenter 
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the 
>> intention of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation 
>> mechanism. That's a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's 
>> proposal simply extends that trick a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> That's incorrect. 3GPP used RFC4861 as the IETF asked it to use it 
>> - to assign a /64 to the phone because a single /128 was not 
>> enough. The phone is free to use as many interface IDs within that 
>> /64 as it wants.
> 
> I can't find any words in RFC 4861 that describe an RA/PIO as 
> assigning or delegating a prefix. A PIO announces that a prefix is
> in use on the link, as far as I understand it, and that is very 
> different from assigning or delegating it.

The difference between assigning and delegating a prefix could be
described separately.  It involves using a few distinctors such as :
kind of route for that prefix (connected vs direct, or '*' or vs
next-hop), kind of link (point-to-point or shared), kind of protocol 
(SLAAC vs DHCPv6-PD).

[...]

Alex

> 
> Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>