IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 24 November 2011 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 506EF11E8091 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uN2vwT3tPopM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DAE11E808D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnp4 with SMTP id p4so2519672ggn.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=MOMHL5Mgu0nnCUj+Oofpw5hE5ezy9oxJzgquNp9xvsQ=; b=YM4sNQuw90z1x37z4hVwB+PncKOYeQzAaRshl38Z4sNd3grCyek9RgP7a0xixsfntf JWlu9NsVFRmmdOEZ4m9g==
Received: by 10.100.30.34 with SMTP id d34mr94162and.7.1322105561268; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.30.34 with SMTP id d34mr94156and.7.1322105561146; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.202.14 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:32:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA7A4A60-AAE0-467F-99DC-1368FCD92BDD@gmail.com>
References: <20111122190508.3293.41916.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3035EED43@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <CA7A4A60-AAE0-467F-99DC-1368FCD92BDD@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:32:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0_KKo1VohkTrKnQXQT1hyC_t4DLfSagMEbnE32s7SRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f85d6053e54004b272b0ab"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:32:42 -0000

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 06:27, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>wrote:

> Also, WPD-1 alone would not be enough (cf draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude).


Why do you need dhc-pd-exclude at all?

1. You give the phone a prefix delegation for a prefix (say, a /56).
2. You give the phone a RA that says that one particular /64 of that /56 is
in on the WAN link and is to be used for SLAAC.

The phone already has all the information it needs. Why do you need to tell
it twice that the /64 is special?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email