Re: [v6ops] GRASP

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sun, 31 December 2017 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 C0616127978 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:05:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 8tlRLS9YGvA1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 C25A91200F3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id vBVG5Y1L003729 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:05:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 834432032CA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:05:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779FB20177F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:05:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.62] ([132.166.84.62]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id vBVG5Xvg031015 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:05:34 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <fc31bd170b134c8292d33f52400b175b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <268669d2-e36d-9fb1-cf1c-d3be4cb85e51@gmail.com> <8316cc707dd847a8b2d45e4b6b468f36@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCDD69B@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <0EFD6879-B33B-4639-AE77-A90607DD9455@google.com> <90825185-6fd2-296d-229f-43a79e16bb63@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9c2fdbe9-6638-ed7c-81ba-487eb6f84885@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:05:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <90825185-6fd2-296d-229f-43a79e16bb63@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Oh4Y18g-LYfdATwyKCnDh5wKRBc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] GRASP
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: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 16:05:39 -0000


Le 23/12/2017 à 04:35, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 21/12/2017 10:29, james woodyatt wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 13:12, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>
>> wrote:
>>> [Fred Template asks?]
>>>> ... can we say that ...DHCPv6 PD is the mandated prefix
>>>> delegation service?
>>> 
>>> HNCP (RFC 7788) can be used  to delegate prefixes inside a home
>>> network. I don't think there's consensus for stateful DHCPv6
>>> server to be mandated for internal-to-the-home-network use
>>> cases.
>> 
>> I don’t think there is consensus to mandate that prefix delegation
>> of any sort be a feature of non-transit networks. Pretty sure there
>> is a vocal and powerful faction that will contest against any
>> effort to mandate any kind of prefix delegation on networks where
>> general purpose hosts are provided with public Internet
>> connectivity. Which is why I have finally come around on the need
>> to deploy address amplifying NAT66 in home networks.
> 
> I don't see that argument for homenets. ISPs don't seem reluctant to
> hand out /64, /56 or /48 to paying subscribers. I can see that if you
> want to do something fancy while roaming, you might have to deal with
> a single /128.

I am not sure what did you mean by something fancy?

A delegated /56 to a UE can stay stable during on-off and handover 
events, although I am also curious whether it resists during roaming.

Ideally, there would be no need to use /128 instead of /56 in order to 
be roaming-resistent.

Alex