IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 15 March 2018 18:10 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 5175312D80E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
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 QrMBkdJUzwcf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (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 4105E12D940 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CA0B64 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:10:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RX7EjXLskrBB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:10:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 580D484D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:10:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id p197so4645222vkf.22 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
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=fMQS4uxUaBNwwNzWwFssC22mqRuNdSfTrSbJC/AS86o=; b=U4zUvlKXZxjHqsmSMpQGdLQH4l1YVoyYkDQfe4ObTn3TYpp843tGzMcfTF2WKtr4lF 2JSWPqYPrWFriwb5y+NKfscywVWgR/zqpKmCl7dLQpfVZ9600jJBKk+URoQSTVQfK71V N+a3Qjma24To/ME4CKm1jg/L2EuFPTCCImUHKIeo05oJJgfmyIJYucyqRRRbPYH/bNmc U05qBM7jxxMsN3ZzJzuX1KwyN8fQsG+5ceJ8kKQU94DSHG3n1gPgF1dU9hXd74pbPrcC 0D/XrX9REym7OQclzFJKx2HadnO8PKSSaUFTYY4JbNK0IaDYqcT6WmuT2beCImCIj17R TFDQ==
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=fMQS4uxUaBNwwNzWwFssC22mqRuNdSfTrSbJC/AS86o=; b=VBXlHkD2BuRwitjBm8e5wRnfzQ1h6a0bwcVauoF1ysB+slv76y/8V49i7bWtUtbpJ+ R5SyKUbM5iAvJXO8LheOGVO3SVb/120pEvrAA4B5srKsGzYHRQ5OivGqWyxCYNDt1MyB EcwEnjr5yoc7Ci8GvW0pMKvqhyxzZlrpIeIJOJwx/GiLy1qp24gyB8lXAfmlSJ6TjPHQ i9EwylIf5Zbs997rwaXChiS1jMJ/FAaNkvFSgbnLr2AvAxkSU8cC/rSc6gTbopvWRW7R GIJ1zmuH6HeLqG7AdZ4kHl6wL3s794rlv6Y6eJ55Dz78kqtoiGlW86B6qN1v8ljIsWHF GgNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FgX+P5XD6sDOZRTKA9nshoQD0G8AP7RA0lE4iZOUAzS8Z91sTW tYCExjTu+T+rGJUnFCIy7njMnrlGsTv8GhCd5+l3z8BBAxbsq/iH2DbsCqLvhgiOd1bMau+6wlU 43PoMa/S0tgUQnW1HgHXPYH2q/A==
X-Received: by 10.176.78.212 with SMTP id x20mr6915482uah.194.1521137431247; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuGMRHYDQ5xOH5rd8Y84wKMygo5OYGOftOm69wSaH5tqPSXSexBtTIIDagLseuLc5WkBgpUP/MSBm+KESDKTYY=
X-Received: by 10.176.78.212 with SMTP id x20mr6915470uah.194.1521137430944; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.34.132 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D27651B7-CFE5-403A-8B5E-C9D462D6F379@gmail.com>
References: <172cd17ae54a4adba58ffcdfb522fac5@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1af67899f24b43fa87013c61e59f0de8@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <017501d3b868$7d9a9a70$78cfcf50$@gmail.com> <9490580a13eb497ba22c19a9e360a49b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ddd6c6a937b342abaf5811377f88d731@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4e2c097afdd34ad2a7f31cb463704a72@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D27651B7-CFE5-403A-8B5E-C9D462D6F379@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:10:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1yu9s8RN7rbS9jnX-5M3zVvY4vggwR+3OCDo6iiJtFAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Fred Templin <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "v6ops-chairs@ietf.org" <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ee48439fae00567776819"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UQPHdsIa0MDquT7HlMIZD6p_-c4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:10:35 -0000

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I have updated the agenda at https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-v6ops
>
> I would't actually agree that support for adoption is required; that comes
> when we want to discuss adoption. And for adoption, on a mailing list with
> 1000 people, of which 100-200 show up at meetings, four (and with the
> author, five) doesn't constitute a consensus. What I have told you is that
> people need to show operational interest in the draft - "this would be
> useful in my environment". What the chairs are looking for in the case of
> pdhost is people saying "that would be a useful model for me to deploy in
> my data center or other environment".
>

I'll say I'm interested in the deployment model of assigning hosts whole
/64 prefixes. I'm pushing my vendors (router and WiFi systems) to support
RFC8273 now. I'd actaully prefer a DHCPv6-PD in the host model.  However,
until at least one large OS vendor includes this capability in their base
software, deployment in my campus environment is pointless.

So please count me as operationally interested in this model, I'm not yet
ready to say this draft is the one that should carry the torch for the
model, but I have a great interest in the model of DHCPv6-PD to the host.

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