Re: [v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934 (was: Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 28 September 2021 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 C73923A3555 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.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 H0R2HMuIVFSw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FEC3A0AF1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:7dcf:b62:e611:87db]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 18SHHqif1620294 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:17:54 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 18SHHqif1620294
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1632849474; bh=qI5C8PyxPO2ZDcHbwCPAUK4o+l3y5a4xVJy2mAgcFsQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=E268relhbBv6R5ZH3OawWuBKvUv0yurX/ibdXOXrOROlAePkHJbJk96tNddQJucT2 hBLZILHogR3V5N4dzd/c3Hor+ZfeDEf6C739UKw5PHGke8bSmoWj0eJsyKBCmiu3m1 1Gm7iM9iUYHDlPqhvFEFPe5KIHQXcgfyiJbY97p4=
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Message-Id: <F443EA14-6BA8-4444-B249-10181312F33A@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F10D3AD4-4F96-4918-B3A0-4DF28CDE1EFE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:17:52 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1WKeWkorTxxvNAd=i+CBaY-akg0vC3zYRKWK3QN3W64A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <4527b90f-ed82-287c-29a9-8eb7f9079959@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1WKeWkorTxxvNAd=i+CBaY-akg0vC3zYRKWK3QN3W64A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XZzGYxukcvWCdktD1pcZtNu7SYM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934 (was: Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 17:18:20 -0000


> On Sep 28, 2021, at 05:25 , Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:50 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>  wrote:
> >     Sometimes the network administrator doesn’t want the host using
> >     multiple IP addresses for a variety of reasons.
> > 
> > Ok, but that's also harmful for a variety of reasons, and for general 
> > purpose devices, it's not recommended by the IETF. That's exactly what 
> > RFC 7934 is about - explaining why it's harmful.
> 
> Why are we having this discussion?  DHCPv6 support IA_TA.
> 
> If the administrator has decided that the host should not use multiple IP addresses, then IA_TA obviously can't be used.

Not every environment is identical.. You keep trying to defend your refusal to implement DHCPv6 based largely on
incorrect assumptions along this line.

It’s not helpful.

Owen