IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 05 January 2018 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 7F59C12D775 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:41:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 iXUVgMr_fQiF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (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 6353C124319 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAF360B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-neDhH1BYlV for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:41:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-lf0-f71.google.com (mail-lf0-f71.google.com [209.85.215.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41D8E57A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:41:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f71.google.com with SMTP id t200so990530lff.18 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 05:41:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yWD2JTQjYPhTXHDqNV4C/zzuUdnL1ke3nV8+kpscM4o=; b=WRmIkLssZ8T6QoEV90Zp4kfC9fVT7kSpYcB/kOcN+oJWlroCw9c48mSFHvHGs4QvTp 6GaE4LiGNslanQ6skZB4zO0SV0h48RGgoqkVd0xOO9QRIb+XA2mo+fjgU1IOVfkuyCw6 dF4UPyGsicR3aA5p2GgARAeo2JGuJrHbnafyjpQ60aaklnQ548Q9Ni41omWU5qmPFKkR 1Csggc+V86fVW7vMITO3Zj1cLepOVCa2RqV/07iH/csXAgrAXLiiwQ6yGC8QK63o89Yu T8AZL76lzKjZMcmD2+E5zVWVyNxD0Z9wQLqYGkQ29s8NRWeNu5lUNhl1T43H3ojJ9k99 rTdg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yWD2JTQjYPhTXHDqNV4C/zzuUdnL1ke3nV8+kpscM4o=; b=IucFwsr1hudl88Myr5FJ1KEIQlsHNN7D+0G0vVQuLv/aDetJ0vV1dTXDR1tLeOWOWU YH5GlGjJKbN+P6D5iRz11+HIbEj/ZTLFlh3R7yxz3kVJkByLRgN5lyk73xaVb714e1y6 JLze5KwBf91Idb0f9Ej5WILEfpH/Tq/5NNyCZQeUb5lZCoQNL6aWkevGPK1iinjR2/0R wrYyAd/xDDiVtDBOEFeYO68zXX6Am0DUyz3++pgFQzenQFSbTfM3itC3i1qFWcsZ/j+F DXww2eRJSuZkgIxzpKYURBjzoyvmK5YnlNLzuO/ofp8e22vThKfe/0wGf4ECa+OiQcny HqQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK28p30REjS6Rl3AQxvHjVwTTz4dbjKgwzMCkV87q7kzILgLVqb VuTOFQhJbT/6hyZouCgCtCQ5K/a6Sd+4KMLbGJyAd7i6jJhVHzXiaPMTpTXKo1EV6lYmkqbL/ur bgpRyBtARarCut5b6OXjbG48ibw==
X-Received: by 10.46.95.148 with SMTP id x20mr1768089lje.133.1515159672616; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 05:41:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouSRG5UmauwxcNqh97VvE6fTvD3Xwue5sppbD+94p6gkAZMen3Rz0VyEur2xkXowdZG4ZQiZ94+Z/NPu6JbLbE=
X-Received: by 10.46.95.148 with SMTP id x20mr1768084lje.133.1515159672412; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 05:41:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.193.74 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:41:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <bb950d32-8d8a-420b-f01a-609f941109af@gmail.com>
References: <B7CB2B98-F069-425D-A096-AADA0297B34C@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0r=OZKWHatcaV5ZfXUcJhTrzGqnd6wno7SLur9cJzF5w@mail.gmail.com> <066901d385ab$64d663b0$2e832b10$@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2GjXKM53rJJwRzX7RyrCG8u+KZ0TTGuFv=NefHsKRxrw@mail.gmail.com> <bb950d32-8d8a-420b-f01a-609f941109af@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 07:41:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2aJLVNXmXBjBQ-X8Czo+b7uEYahS_jT+rnaGAByKLzsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a55f60d6db70562079a17"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CqCw-qL7uWO8lpnpblOr8TSmlbk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 13:41:17 -0000

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2018 14:32, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:28 AM, <7riw77@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As the implementer of devices that are sometimes IPv6 routers, I object
> >> to the
> >>> requirement that such devices MUST implement DHCPv6. The reason is that
> >>> implementing DHCPv6 will degrade the user experience.
> >>> See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg26286.html
> >>> for an example of how that can happen.
> >>
> >> Being required to implement DHCPv6 is far different than being required
> to
> >> _turn it on by default_ -- the draft specifically does not require
> DHCPv6
> >> to be turned on by default for this very reason.
> >
> >
> > Help me understand. Are you saying that mobile hotspots should implement
> > DHCPv6 because this draft says so, but then never turn it on because it's
> > bad for their users?
>
> Lorenzo, are you saying that the requirements in this draft need to be
> scoped? That doesn't sound unreasonable, but if so, what would the
> scoping text look like?
>

While not specifically or plainly stated in the document, I remember from
early discussion of this document that this was intended to be focused on
enterprise and/or carrier grade routers and not CPE or consumer grade
routers, in fact we already have documents for CPE IPv6 routers (RFC7084).
I think this is supported by the fact that this document discusses subjects
like MPLS, YANG, etc...

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email