IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 28 September 2021 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 836013A2D39 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZULG1MPKcyrR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E93FF3A2D3B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 18SDE1NY074392 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 14:14:02 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <4527b90f-ed82-287c-29a9-8eb7f9079959@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1WKeWkorTxxvNAd=i+CBaY-akg0vC3zYRKWK3QN3W64A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <9579b9bf-3e28-645d-cb33-cdea61036cc8@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 14:14:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.49
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1WKeWkorTxxvNAd=i+CBaY-akg0vC3zYRKWK3QN3W64A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_8Z8afm1R-SOK9lFOOg6Ifp0_Uw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re-evaluating RFC7934
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 13:14:17 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote on 28/09/2021 13:25:
> If the administrator has decided that the host should not use multiple 
> IP addresses, then IA_TA obviously can't be used.

So when someone is at work connecting to the company network, who needs 
to comply with whose policies?  Does the company abide by the employee's 
/ user's policies, or the other way around?

Or take a more general case: if I rock up to a hosting/cloud provider or 
broadband access provider and instruct them that they're a great bunch 
of people, no really, but that they're obliged to comply with my network 
access policies for the set of products that they supply and I want to 
buy, how does that work out?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email