Re: [v6ops] GRASP

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 23 December 2017 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C4C124D85 for <>; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHkvQfXBcOMT for <>; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B351200C5 for <>; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s3so13918496plp.4 for <>; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1tUsQ2FfhbjshhCgFBCst6c9HCTttGk8xlB/1ZaftQc=; b=LBqb5VmsEFoAfaQpo/yVln3qm+eb2anB2Gp8/GSFB/+mKs4OGNgn7WS0ruRVu/MFPX aUSkychcj8tVflhOuR8YTfjz078kt/ytvlEhELo7Vmm92goUhmSNcrkwrzg3CFr5Eh9Q t3jr5Ypn9b4u0ZBxBifv5ubQpbY2dURq9dxdyYMxU6LOvqga/kR1eja/K7jZyDYpaRKt 3m/luZma1UUAD/yy7uV1xNFbZuTJbbwnlCMB1938vVmfNpSqrXR2poUEdl22HLi11q/y q/GOTiygfZeaj4SLXFO2UY2qAdWcO+ERVkVMTMrKbgQJadRpBBsFbE2fiyxibZT0CODC Fclw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1tUsQ2FfhbjshhCgFBCst6c9HCTttGk8xlB/1ZaftQc=; b=Aanq+P5y+60bkBNnvDsCVlnS2tapjG1wVrktVrlJKdKrX0Y8utEnlbRO1aUAXKWozs YAR+DfeJoIDPY2kF4Qzx4qKm3/99pgyFeplGjtNDBVwyketj+Iiayf9Ff1KKxDODvEi2 Mxw9M9nZEqaFXk0HTmbTuBW6sJRdPY62V4DxVUDVFS2S+/X0cuZz+v08c6tdo0mELJrk TLAI7DVPkyXprGrzEnzJi5vV1R6U6IeDFlSFzO6aLWuYC8YCsRPOT4BEKoYoTHwZyCwI 6zLpeXGzv31Wk7Il+c4uz2rsjMer1vxlNxMck0kzrnmJvmfo3efcUyt/u9Ouyumh+U2N 95Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI24CsNIabe4FqDjll1Z+zOm93Ne9+43Er6JJkkZ9li//9IjciR cKzt2I29KiU0ZdajlVYLGT2UvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovlhF5MuGUtrPb/2sb7ONxcc+HloK5GDTX+v8tbPYq7IGWgPqnxJ++YDGWyE3miZA6FFoilyA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h7mr16282393pln.93.1514000119360; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id q24sm39674800pgv.27.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:35:17 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:35:25 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] GRASP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 03:35:22 -0000

On 21/12/2017 10:29, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 13:12, STARK, BARBARA H <> 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.