IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB3A3A0D0E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.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 LtA0RPPhUVvs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4983A0AD8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:1c9c:c07d:3884:d7e0] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:1c9c:c07d:3884:d7e0]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04MIr5gC1067941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:07 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04MIr5gC1067941
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590173587; bh=K9CwVL7DXyKhW6Bt4l9lfXWaLpt86THjqjLbIDmzSzM=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=yX8z+3usNpwPmyvEF0LQEFdcRtuJgFww/6JUQAcsncOW4qsITbgcaErBfCRmLPH8/ MmddUOonePs6kk5Ql+/TCRnDnVllWT9PNvmGqFsiSUfTWP0AqXiOm37jJiWr5cLpol ZDquKB0dav4qgkgOPZ9pWEipWrMJDW9NWf9vDM0k=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1jc9R0-0000I4C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:05 -0700
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B45A0FFE-5AE4-42BF-A8C7-B33F60B1BCAD@delong.com>
References: <m1jb1gz-0000MZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <m1jbKVd-0000L7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAHL_VyDWYz=hUTZ+RDZ0JuF-KCsh5HBsM1pFFy3FqtL6pC_hCw@mail.gmail.com> <m1jbRI7-0000LCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAHL_VyA23QJzgTy_nauxmjPM4PJT00YC451QL+s6d3dMomkX5Q@mail.gmail.com> <m1jc9R0-0000I4C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0WpiIhN-OupKdBAy_ToH_toQyqk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 18:53:16 -0000


> On May 22, 2020, at 08:18 , Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> 
>> The DHCPv6 PD client doesn't know that the prefix is static, just that it
>> has the rights to use that prefix for up to the Valid Lifetime.
>> It's presumptuous and foolish of the host to over-promise the use of said
>> prefix downstream.
> 
> I'm not talking about the DHCPv6 client, but about the RA server component.
> The RA server gets as input the prefix with lifetimes from DHCPv6, and
> (optionally) a request from the operator of the device to advertise a longer
> lifetime. In that case the RA server should honour the user's request.

Why wouldn’t the operator in such a case simply configure the RA side as static?

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email