Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 13 October 2021 17:58 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 6477B3A08B6; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:51 -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 e_fwLQRxVBWc; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAE03A08CB; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:14af:8646:5244:2bdd]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 19DHwiYb3979409 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:44 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 19DHwiYb3979409
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1634147924; bh=JPr6LduMKsN5ZgwKEzkQd5PCaH9KcFmMqhtsUZ8ccJc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=XfzuE3BwG4czRFZOrmOGMNUkhjWyG/D96KEh2ppiRl43deQaaAu/Q6yPAXMqp8RTz 7aIwU7o9NysU6zVjlUGAEbznwhIBvtrJx1ck//CyJYrZjgipG0BM2LOG7Mw0deg3KW Z2gXttbGuz5u0ScMY6y5nBa0eLno5deXbOua5wJM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <YWcZ8ROAmbjVLNUJ@Space.Net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:44 -0700
Cc: Clark Gaylord <cgaylord@vt.edu>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <421CFA29-B8CB-4714-8E0B-1713E979015D@delong.com>
References: <1A6ED87B-666E-439C-852F-2E5C904C0515@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr23fY2DJDvB-9eVFRsxnBnZQ0kZuZfYUfRUHYW=_D=enA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1z0q0R61x7iY+Wg_cFRU0jmqr+fR0y=bSXxj+K-n722w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1T_mXfxJGHOrBfqZfexm6GTrUqnFi57710pTroKQK6uQ@mail.gmail.com> <702CB018-1A02-4B32-B9AA-7C7B31521F12@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr0jZR8Efzr_Y6FeiBvHYS8ATmDupx2ABTXXy-rSA_QjmA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB69249D4F0A8003E77EC9F153C3B19@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAN-Dau0q7p-9NWv=9vouX51Z1Yqe_h06WwpnkMjkyj6=A7EcQw@mail.gmail.com> <m1mZfPJ-0000IoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CADzU5g7z2eQAfa2F4yJb512UGVNVz=7q5ne565XEmb1bztJNeQ@mail.gmail.com> <YWcZ8ROAmbjVLNUJ@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/81M5-oZwBbVNu1ibUMk9EXo14MM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
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: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:58:52 -0000


> On Oct 13, 2021, at 10:40 , Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 05:04:39PM -0400, Clark Gaylord wrote:
>> The predictability of assigned/managed addresses is less a problem for your
>> arbitrary client/phone and more of an issue for the potential use case, for
>> example, of IoT/instrumentation devices where the endpoints are perceived
>> to need more active management than the typical phone.
> 
> And this is a typical role for an Android mobile device?

A lot of IOT development is using android as a base OS, yes.

Mobile device? Not necessarily, but lots of IoT with WiFi or Ethernet only interfaces
do use android as a base OS.

> And this is so important that a general purpose mobile device can not do
> IA_NA/IA_TA, because some special-purpose IoT hub would need something
> else?

I think he’s arguing that android should do IA_NA/IA_TA not only because of the
situations that desire it for general purpose mobile devices, but also because
it’s even more important for IOT things that are being built on the android platform.

I could be wrong, Clark can certainly correct me if I misunderstood his concern.

Owen