Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 08 October 2021 16:48 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 7C0FF3A083E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 t3nPjdnfgg9Q for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0672B3A0060 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HQvJS4xdwz9vknt for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 16:48:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RR7eaIx1lAgX for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:48:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f198.google.com (mail-yb1-f198.google.com [209.85.219.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HQvHt1dczz9vb6F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:47:37 -0500 (CDT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4HQvHt1dczz9vb6F
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4HQvHt1dczz9vb6F
Received: by mail-yb1-f198.google.com with SMTP id i83-20020a256d56000000b005b706d1417bso13249545ybc.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 09:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uk5LYGJTzD8IAy4uJ3P877fTGBUqUjq92DLgrnGNGVk=; b=loF5Oj5nzWBNj/ZlClDEsQ7w+5g1Fs65uMyNNDogxrRa8omwItdsih0aVlMIyrsw4L /nWLhKgAEQFvao9j+7EcKEkBsDajbw86aK3Krk6ItzTNExkK8ZPrJGif8mpLZ7Z4jxqo e3v5nMgz9j8kd95RwOdndBLo8XrtfFB9ctGSU8iVCgONUi6V/mP94BCdOEGIyTOyMGe+ JiOjIzj4k/ckCTjOXDlnYTHrmKyB4seb9CtMgCC7zTX04E6OUpRbYwVkHXIS3FYos86w 8NbkOXHcfserE91Yg8OoF76y82TIfWJL9iY4WAaqp971GVwO6DcDgmpAhU6szU7A6Pof x3SA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uk5LYGJTzD8IAy4uJ3P877fTGBUqUjq92DLgrnGNGVk=; b=BAE104CV4YoDD0gD6detTrqebq2TjX5nMqfW3jpz79jAWlMCmcwWKmthNOCG7JlDsN EqkxXmo8dyJ5GH8PhWAL4Zr4hyvb+Oke5y/xW78N8ECgqim00A3wVO7uOF4t92QkMTIG yCiA20sNT5wOXnl/DyJUAD2L0zk6RNy7beuQsPefE4+DLO19xUkS9FzMMGSdJsurgOwq 5DhbmG7Ave9BOTYIYkHcJa51CV8qql3gjPYUW7bC/wNqTWaID6CEDP+t7bxVFMIzgw3J rcsRMQXdsSA7YwfNF8NZSwCEl6Wm8RdF02RH/DyPhvJGsusjn+xQNHOYiga/3UMHC51E E1Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jygbXRd5+YGt16e8hBOm5cNfR7XwPorasE3RkpQzhnbz7GbID TA8BkZkPpHps32eP6KpjCyyMGq6GGOS6yFu77yYkWa0EposiMjkvhX7aho40pROWK9X3q6HnAeN f4TAyJPsyN42a33sfkxggYTL2eQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c014:: with SMTP id c20mr4545390ybf.55.1633711656420; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbwzfGUHLzn637H+RbZTFsY+1TpmDT6uWF+7NBdBCvDZpIHmj66FVLDDWSMG4shHGX7N7jX1sBMc3XhrKqOVY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c014:: with SMTP id c20mr4545349ybf.55.1633711656002; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DDA36020-90CC-471B-83AD-3D98950F1164@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr0T-7t-UHbsJBMLpTjKhPAV5uUQkux6oby89TVUue7PyA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881D400EA4681F1505040D2D8AA9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr3TmqFxjKuZ57wS7VuPOf6rJvOwnvnQdFrRLQ=DkZ+CCw@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881F411A4D5BEA7A8479726D8AA9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <D8AEA194-293B-43E4-BCAE-33CD81FB7D8C@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2Tug-PFV7wAh0s6-gw8W3LcLG7wC1fD7Lu_hMZQYKdtw@mail.gmail.com> <08D2885E-B824-48E8-9703-DCA98771FA37@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2EVsY3tYUf56R0Q1+KVrowtqh-HgwXj5vxzy4wd-vkTg@mail.gmail.com> <1A6ED87B-666E-439C-852F-2E5C904C0515@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr23fY2DJDvB-9eVFRsxnBnZQ0kZuZfYUfRUHYW=_D=enA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1z0q0R61x7iY+Wg_cFRU0jmqr+fR0y=bSXxj+K-n722w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1T_mXfxJGHOrBfqZfexm6GTrUqnFi57710pTroKQK6uQ@mail.gmail.com> <702CB018-1A02-4B32-B9AA-7C7B31521F12@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr0jZR8Efzr_Y6FeiBvHYS8ATmDupx2ABTXXy-rSA_QjmA@mail.gmail.com> <1adb70a8-db0a-4ea6-f721-c1035343cda3@foobar.org> <DM6PR02MB69249D4F0A8003E77EC9F153C3B19@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAN-Dau0q7p-9NWv=9vouX51Z1Yqe_h06WwpnkMjkyj6=A7EcQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0q7p-9NWv=9vouX51Z1Yqe_h06WwpnkMjkyj6=A7EcQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 11:47:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1VJaMMkJ0S2GWrQpNgy0t_Rcb7DTJ-G5kC8A=Wod7jXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec005e05cdda2276"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/awVOoMiFIAO-pvLa9dFfsjCHX_E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 16:48:15 -0000

WOOPS! I meant N greater than 1, so, that should have been N>1.

Sorry about that.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 11:28 AM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:21 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>
>> > > but hosts should not
>> > > be able to set policies on how many IPv6 addresses they accept.
>> >
>> > Sure they can.  There's nothing stopping a dhcpv6 client from refusing
>> > to enable ipv6 on an interface if it gets less than N addresses.
>>
>> Host policy should be dictated by the people in control of the host and
>> not IETF.
>> IETF has no business restricting the rights of device owners and private
>> networks operators to dictate what devices are allowed to do on their
>> network. This sort of prohibition on device owners and private network
>> admins setting host policy would be 100% harmful.
>>
>
> Ok, the IETF shouldn't pick N, I'm ok with that. But, does that mean you
> think it is inappropriate for host implementations to enforce some number
> of IPv6 addresses be available? Or, are you saying that is completely up to
> network operators?
>
> I will note a few things;
>
> 1. The IETF hasn't picked a value of  N, but it has, through RFC7934, said
> that N<1.
> 2. In effect Android already enforces, N<1, by only supporting the
> self-assigned addressing model of SLAAC.
> 3. However, by not supporting a DHCPv6 client, Android doesn't support the
> managed-assignment addressing model of DHCPv6.
>
> In an effort to find a compromise that allows Android to support DHCPv6
> and therefore the managed-assignment addressing model, I'm suggesting it is
> reasonable for DHCPv6 clients to require the availability of more than one
> IPv6 address before it enables it's IPv6 stack, and it sounds like Lorenzo
> is at least open to discuss such a comprise.
>
> However, it seems that some people are insisting that network operators
> should be able to assign one and only one IPv6 address per client.
> Personally, I think this argument is utterly futile, is creating a
> deadlock, and it is holding back the deployment of IPv6. However, this
> deadlock is not caused only by Android not supporting DHCPv6, but it is
> also caused by those that insist that assigning one and only one address is
> a valid IPv6 deployment strategy, and that network operators should have
> ultimate and unilateral control in this matter.
>
> I'm willing to concede that network operators need to allocate more than
> one IPv6 address per client.. Furthermore, I think it is very important
> that all major operating systems allow for both IPv6 address
> assignment models, self-assigned (SLAAC) and managed-assignment (DHCPv6).
>
> I'm having visions of IETF becoming not unlike the Texas legislature in
>> its desire to dictate "morality".
>> Barbara
>>
>
> Insisting the network operators have ultimate and unilateral control of
> this issue is equally dictating "morality".
>
> 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
> ===============================================
>


-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================