IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 25 September 2017 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 26FBC1331F6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 qJ6MXghy_CEE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 423581321C7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 63D14B1; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:44:30 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1506336270; bh=hH2JVaBihuCCg4+zzSIVhRNuoCH4YiM3JRqrFM5M5AE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IxCMU/+CnpCoFB7fn3eb20KCK1zrZizh4C5feU9M7f93rUuT5iXq4eLFYpMeATZqB bJAur7GsR7gu20dhzr05hvxmer9W78FfaFQdmlJztmeno5ga4hIunWgG/e0oTusXUh 9tLd369Or+jisx0v7QpiXxt8faDSWRpsXUugM+nE=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C59E84; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:44:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:44:30 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <b6a82856-daf2-dda7-bb6b-f62b9667714f@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251241430.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <369B3917-D9F3-41D4-A7BD-DAE134310004@employees.org> <20170922122146.GY45648@Space.Net> <20170922212502.E0CFF87B00BA@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAKD1Yr0VdmS0APz-G5VmxMNY1y9Kj+g0VP4Jx0_MXLkqkVyE8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4bf16a40ffd44e9498babf7094b1e526@orange.com> <f8b54014-c5af-d63f-5eed-35f19728b4f7@gmail.com> <0E9B8640-E102-4AB0-8908-28A988795861@consulintel.es> <ba63f464-cf1e-69d1-4d34-c961a8fef286@gmail.com> <2292D724-BF30-4530-A6BE-0B33E30043D0@consulintel.es> <fa203bf8-31a5-c8ef-8559-419616774787@gmail.com> <20170925102250.GA45648@Space.Net> <81661be5-4a1a-1f8a-10d0-829e775546d9@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251231030.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se> <b6a82856-daf2-dda7-bb6b-f62b9667714f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/T07mdeDjXQCo7ZXP7O-MFgNFpv4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:44:39 -0000

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> The other is pure human reluctance to allow it to work.  The reason invoked 
> for that is that "it is not needed, because CLAT does it".

My guess would be that we do not have DHCPv6-PD in mobile networks because 
RFC7278 works well enough for most deployment scenarios, and it's a pain 
to get DHCPv6-PD into both mobile core and UEs (chicken and egg problem, 
plus "what we have seems to work for most" (ie 64SHARE)).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email