IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 F34B612957A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:09:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2BcXn3c8Qwki for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6DFF12956C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l37so79024345wrc.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:09:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cn+Qbfh00bpbbaovaEYxQnVbWM/jBsCyrM4ipVE0IyI=; b=aMQt7xYTRFivx8vpCRrdcs+YL4cy05Lv0CyJ6ys7vRI7c8GCEes4gA42ci6mRznC72 K1eecQRgjgf6eu8PnGsWPaDwjDr31Dk1aZpDLjVfwT5bZ4lv6OVbmlpz6L/DltlqRUsR suh1s982asOjByiHeRBSAVGLAD4QPi8blASpyr4/7nZa4IQWuZgXMEKNKVPauYxMu8hI mAJSfgNmmXSEZkhS3QT9DPSgM3xHWxN7WhDJS+Vli6E1Xt36a8mU6n0U7bI07qy/JNU6 RS9+32shu47mQkrpt+OBdMJFOZUN1g10rgUdCZOEz+SxXp5rZwnCN/u6VNFNdZlJ5099 Kb0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cn+Qbfh00bpbbaovaEYxQnVbWM/jBsCyrM4ipVE0IyI=; b=f9/JNxRd0JXvnZz00GUudTpvY1gyf7FwLPVlEmdNhUpsvkg9WBO/6ucJn0yYBJx3M4 6E5hFC2HHmKu6nfCKG6cugOHYUcCsN9wHVXOToCfCj/rgNbe+qik8GBGye2f5fNH5Cm3 fFgey4KvdZx1hTsNxxp21zDCIVF4eXXlxBzcL10Gu/TG8fOYwnZSQt/UHjreVMG7c/YF 0pG86JlOfQcqfQdveAJdqKpKTR5Bf/QZg+IebMjwMSkdJAssC5/wSU1wFDpNBNXwGpuz Hp+6BzpiMXYY3Dn46RUDkbufFdaCF2COWX6DNxbKv+YTdwtSGiShoOmo2umxCBvRktY8 upng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mhGTGV+cuELeztlEvPO3xRMRu36ilTF//V1TXaAWIHqPKZJ/rVEeb6kHWGP+AeRXbWKTP+xbCTDm/uaA==
X-Received: by 10.223.163.206 with SMTP id m14mr4254116wrb.34.1488564544232; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:09:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d1193890-0066-ad01-e521-0d9e8df065a8@gmail.com> <CAAedzxoy+=+FB=U89Fe84hDNwSdZTk0e8YYn934=V3RS3yb=DA@mail.gmail.com> <61403895-2de4-f769-2a8c-486d14a297f4@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTgCf1qWFxcG9psVFG_nfRj2EWUoy6i7mLY_39COESsYQ@mail.gmail.com> <66d7e60b-32ec-744f-384e-ef66cc01bf8b@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQC3rpoJU=fPgmxce-1LJHYoOdJW0FEKWa6PxyRrLyN+g@mail.gmail.com> <c538a328-46ca-d2f5-afcc-395af1fdcdee@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c538a328-46ca-d2f5-afcc-395af1fdcdee@gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 18:08:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSUdmPSqM=VUkuA1dbfi1XA_mHpcY4v7RHhRiAgBo-hjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f2204e263f20549d7704e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XQA50mR0TF98pHrD1wzvZtRZ4jg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 Mar 2017 18:09:07 -0000

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 03/03/2017 à 18:27, Ca By a écrit :
> [...]
>
> > For your convenience, i provide this quote from it.
> >
> > "DHCPv6 is the best way to delegate a prefix to a LAN link.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The methods described in this document SHOULD only be applied when
> > deploying DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is not achievable in the 3GPP
> > network and the UE."
>
> I disagree with this formulation.  It leaves place for applying it.
>

Correct , 64share was writen to be deployed.


> The method in this document SHOULD NOT be applied because it is not a
> scalable networking technology.
>
> Please stop using it.


I disagree with SHOULD NOT since i am certainly focused on immediate
business / engineering issues.

I do not have any more to offer on this topic.


>
> > "
> >
> > So telling anyone about 64share is by association telling them
> > dhcp-pd is best.
> >
> > Dhcp-pd will be deployed as soon as the business case justifies it,
>
> I think you are too much immediate business oriented.  Please have a
> longer term look.
>
> If you agreed that 64share is evil, then you may open the ways for even
> more traffic into your network.
>
> > 64share is a single LAN stop gap.
>
> I agree.  It is single LAN, but it is not a stop gap.
>
> It is a stop in that it stops creating the demand for scalable
> networking technologies.  It stops the edge networks from growing.
>
> > Your issue is simply one of supply and demand.
>
> There is demand.  The supply is lacking.  Moreover, it looks as a
> purposeful refusal to make supply, without any technical issue.
>
> Are you interested in getting more traffic through your network?  Or not?
>
> If you are interested in getting more traffic through your network then
> give people more addresses - it's as simple as that.
>
> > No ietf or 3gpp document is lacking specification for making dhcp-pd
> > happen.
>
> Were the above text corrected as I suggest, I would indeed agree with you.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> >>  v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org
> > <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>
> >
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email