IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 B4CE6129515 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 f_SWhqC_Tbb8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 23CE61294F4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id vAG5u4KC036132; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:56:04 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.172]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id vAG5ttRW036081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:55:55 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efac::8988:efac) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:55:54 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:55:54 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
Thread-Index: AQHTXoFjbBaTujqFZECShuBca1gGBKMWf4dg
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:55:54 +0000
Message-ID: <962041fbaee844b5a4cdd82012440dbe@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <7FC2CA6E-8BF7-47BC-9164-1877FAF83FD0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7FC2CA6E-8BF7-47BC-9164-1877FAF83FD0@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4_BJgA7Nsi1QLx_4vLZk_AV1wAc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:56:07 -0000

Hi Fred,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:20 PM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
> 
> At IETF 100, we discussed this document. The “hum” regarding adoption was slightly in favor, but not clear. However, we had one
> comment that IF it were adopted, it needs to be expanded to be an architectural document describing /64-to-the-host deployments.

The way I understood the comment was that the draft needs more supporting
text on the rationale for doing what the document describes (e.g., the benefit
for not having to place the upstream interface in promiscuous mode, efficiencies
for not doing link-scoped multicasting over the upstream interface, avoiding
disturbance of other nodes on the upstream link, etc.

I did not think the comment was asking to expand the document to cover all
methods of conveying a /64 to the host (e.g., unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host,
3GPP, etc.). This document only concerns methods that meet the description
of prefix delegation as described for examples such as DHCPv6 PD.

Thanks - Fred

> Shall we adopt it as a working group draft?
> 
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email