Return-Path: 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 08831C151536 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XFNnL3OzwLu for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16D3C14F61A for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-6e7e23b42c3so1016331a12.1 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; t=1723142128; x=1723746928; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Phw0+v/4BqQXTAde34A5hJXUyIUwTYSiaMN7pt7UV/I=; b=SC0qbLCh13XXhb2rZj87MjbK7xrt0HXIHKE3biHnhuCu1TI1oC3wgtWkStuTk3Wn1C r2pfHIS/CAEO5X4nSuEFf8KqeED+jjUIiJuyUzEc3D06xTZ4DRAxlKR02Mil5n51luz0 s0cvLHl0hXosyMuG5yRj0Sh5xnwqeZAxV97IM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723142128; x=1723746928; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Phw0+v/4BqQXTAde34A5hJXUyIUwTYSiaMN7pt7UV/I=; b=qLg7XIrFtxbzjt+DtvFrDvd7l/bHRy9zvMlu9C5Ucu7aO4vrizsFVLd6KMWTMxV9Qu HHpJvvE5dF1SWGze+XN3maKAyQ3WiardkqHacl2uRvNe+wMFaVDDoZ4p7jTP8bjGpy1I QxAENhVFnEc7R75ldIKRJKf80YUMdpzjIMp4j3gwgXHM+1fJ285smNpxXsarKT3Np3AN Y1570cm2bOYZYHiYGTt0BD2oAwGjtUup0ho7WR9GcheKECVsAFDRJZSCCva7Khbabw1C OTLSN7wljWYuxQjJPhJ0EQ2cMmE/LdyQ/n2sp7vBK740Pb07YUfelXZb2dwZeUNbmc1r Hw4Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUwjxHXehbsaFbNxoYQ99Iy3fprcc9pbzktM0lAiZmEsApNdn03jHaOKzCyT9/pbZidqi2GqSs15KK1xWmgtw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLE46X2BDU4VQ53reidqRgZoj7u1uR2G11Nv7kJtTV0cYvWaMV aPpYeCzVznNVpA3dnP/SdFTNogYt3Mq3wY8+AhdmfBlUqFDEClEpEKpOg2Z54ABNXj13fWrMnAc pL2CqosBFlqlFg5DP0t9xVBXFrBPuaSqIJumHIg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHOYCXfQNg2B97GQklxsaS4gAWrZYAKeYUw2SJSRiY+SE25IQWkkX3NgaIPNKuNL4zALHwQDQSEBn/0m/TcUoE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:dac5:b0:1ff:56b8:2c1b with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-200952e85d5mr31316885ad.60.1723142127980; Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11d52d74-b53a-4176-8128-5d2aa80320ca@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Timothy Winters Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 14:35:16 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fb5f0061f304ab5" Message-ID-Hash: RICC5GV6CXU4KP3WNHVW524PUEYAT6H7 X-Message-ID-Hash: RICC5GV6CXU4KP3WNHVW524PUEYAT6H7 X-MailFrom: tim@qacafe.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Tim Chown , IPv6 Operations X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_Correction=3A_Re=3A_Working_group_Last_call=3A_d?= =?utf-8?q?raft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd?= List-Id: v6ops discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000006fb5f0061f304ab5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ted, That was in a branch that neglected to merge. Thanks for the reminder, I posted it on -04. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-04 LPD-7: The IPv6 CE Router MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a prefix-length of 64 unless configured to different prefix-length by the user. The prefix length of 64 is used as that is the current prefix length supported by SLAAC. ~Tim On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon wrote: > What happened to the updates we talked about earlier (e.g., MUST, and > explaining what "by default" means)? :) > > I'm otherwise okay with this text though. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:04=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters w= rote: > >> Hi Tim, >> >> I can get on board with that. >> >> OLD: >> LPD-7: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD IA >> prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. >> >> New: >> LPD-7: The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA_PD >> IA prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. The prefix length of 64 is >> used as that is the current prefix length supported by SLAAC. >> >> ~Tim >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown = wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Timothy Winters >>> *Date: *Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09 >>> *To: *Tim Chown >>> *Cc: *Brian E Carpenter , Nick Buraglio < >>> buraglio@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Operations >>> *Subject: *Re: [v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:24=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown >> 40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Brian E Carpenter >>> *Date: *Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53 >>> *To: *Nick Buraglio , IPv6 Operations < >>> v6ops@ietf.org> >>> *Subject: *[v6ops] Correction: Re: Working group Last call: >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd >>> >>> I support the draft going forward. >>> >>> I do have one comment on the scope of the document. I believe that it >>> should also cover use of PD for a locally assigned ULA prefix. Please d= on't >>> turn this into another endless ULA thread - but if the CE has assigned = a >>> ULA prefix, and supports PD for a GUA prefix, it should also support PD= for >>> the ULA prefix. >>> >>> >>> >>> This seems reasonable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Should /64 be hard coded in the document, or should it refer to a prefi= x >>> of the length required to support SLAAC as currently defined? >>> >>> I'm concerned this will cause confusion amongst the CE Router community >>> if I don't put an actual number. If you really want we can 64 is based= on >>> the prefix length of SLAAC as currently defined. How strong do you fee= l >>> about this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Not strongly, but the WG has of late been trying not to unnecessarily >>> hard code the 64 into documents. If 64 is used, then a short statement = as >>> to why would be good. >>> >>> >>> >>> The pd-per-device draft uses /64 in an example and says =E2=80=9CNote t= hat the prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because that is the pref= ix length currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise required by the= proposed deployment model=E2=80=9D and says a little more on /64 in sectio= n 8 which also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64 isn=E2=80=99t = =E2=80=9Chard coded=E2=80=9D in there, in that its use in the example is cl= early explained. >>> >>> Minor nit =E2=80=93 the =E2=80=9Caddresses=E2=80=9D at the end of para = 1 of the intro should >>> probably say =E2=80=9Cprefixes=E2=80=9D. >>> >>> thanks, fixed in -03. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> (There are several grammatical nits in the Introduction. I'll send them >>> to the author off-list.) >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian Carpenter >>> >>> On 07-Aug-24 03:18, Nick Buraglio wrote: >>> > All, >>> > >>> > This message begins the working group last call for >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd. Please read the draft and send your commen= ts >>> in response to this email. >>> > >>> > The draft can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ < >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/> >>> > >>> > nb >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>> > To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org >> > --0000000000006fb5f0061f304ab5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ted,

That was in a branch that negle= cted to merge.=C2=A0 Thanks for the=C2=A0reminder, I posted it on -04.=C2= =A0


LPD-7:
The= IPv6 CE Router MUST provision IA_PD prefixes with a prefix-length of 64 un= less configured to different prefix-length by the user. The prefix length o= f 64 is used as that is the current prefix length supported by SLAAC.
~Tim

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Ted Lemon <= ;mellon@fugue.com= > wrote:
What happened to the updates we talked about earlier (e.g., MU= ST, and explaining what "by default" means)? :)

I'm otherwise okay with this text though.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 = at 2:04=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
Hi Tim,

I= can get on board with that.

OLD:=C2=A0
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0LPD-7: =C2=A0The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by default provision IA= _PD IA prefixes with a prefix-length of 64.

Ne= w:=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0LPD-7: =C2=A0The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD by d= efault provision IA_PD IA=C2=A0prefixes with a prefix-length of 64. The pre= fix length of 64 is=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0used as that is the curren= t prefix length supported by SLAAC.

~Tim

On T= hu, Aug 8, 2024 at 4:22=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi Tim,=

=C2=A0<= /span>

From: Timothy Winters <ti= m@qacafe.com>
Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 20:09
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Nick Buraglio &= lt;buragl= io@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: Correction: Re: Working group Last call: dr= aft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd

Hi Tim,

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 7:= 24=E2=80=AFAM Tim Chown= <Tim.Chown=3D40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Hi,

=C2=A0

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 21:53
To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>, IPv6 Operations &= lt;v6ops@ietf.org&g= t;
Subject: [v6ops] Correction: Re: Working group Last call: draft-ietf= -v6ops-cpe-lan-pd

I support the draft going forward.

I do have one comment on the scope of the document. I believe that it shoul= d also cover use of PD for a locally assigned ULA prefix. Please don't = turn this into another endless ULA thread - but if the CE has assigned a UL= A prefix, and supports PD for a GUA prefix, it should also support PD for the ULA prefix.=

=C2=A0

This seems reasonable.<= /p>

=C2=A0

Should /64 be hard coded in the document, or= should it refer to a prefix of the length required to support SLAAC as cur= rently defined?

I'm concerned this wi= ll cause confusion amongst the CE Router community if I don't put an ac= tual number.=C2=A0 If you really want we can 64=C2=A0is based on the prefix= length of SLAAC as currently defined.=C2=A0 How strong do you feel about this?

=C2=A0<= /span>

Not strongly, but the= WG has of late been trying not to unnecessarily hard code the 64 into docu= ments. If 64 is used, then a short statement as to why would be good.

=C2=A0<= /span>

The pd-per=
-device draft uses /64 in an example and says =E2=80=9CNote that the =
prefix lengths used in the example are /64 because that is the prefix lengt=
h currently supported by SLAAC and is not otherwise required by the propose=
d deployment model=E2=80=9D and says a little more on /64 in section 8 whic=
h also refers to RFC 7084, and in section 11. The 64 isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=
=9Chard coded=E2=80=9D in there, in that its use in the example is clearly =
explained.=C2=A0

Minor nit =E2=80=93 the =E2=80=9Caddresses= =E2=80=9D at the end of para 1 of the intro should probably say =E2=80=9Cpr= efixes=E2=80=9D.

thanks, fixed in -03.=C2= =A0

=C2=A0<= /span>

Best wishes,

Tim

=C2=A0

Tim



(There are several grammatical nits in the Introduction. I'll send them= to the author off-list.)

Regards
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Brian Carpenter

On 07-Aug-24 03:18, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> All,
>
> This message begins the working group last call for draft-ietf-v6ops-c= pe-lan-pd. Please read the draft and send your comments in response to this= email.
>
> The draft can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd/>
>
> nb
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- v= 6ops@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org

_________________________= ______________________
v6ops mailing list -- v= 6ops@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list -- v= 6ops@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
--0000000000006fb5f0061f304ab5--