IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 20 September 2017 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 8F3BC1320D8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:41:57 -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, 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 VqTL1iXvrhEE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57CB212421A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A42C2D4FE9; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BDC10B89917; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:41:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <3F99667F-56A6-487E-9AA6-D0FCB0BB4450@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_16E5F533-45BB-4806-8552-02AB95FA84A8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:41:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <add60b73-17a3-ca99-39e1-e58b7002344e@gmail.com>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <C1017FAF-91C3-4CA3-89C2-B64FF5100E41@consulintel.es> <85d934b3-ae06-c0ea-3519-4069c8387f0a@gmail.com> <C33DB89E-C005-4A32-9066-C8EE710F3255@consulintel.es> <b16c4ca2-da97-9a5a-0f88-6388ebbda80e@gmail.com> <B9C2822F-56EE-47D8-AAB5-C041A3D22F41@gmail.com> <f23854dd-0952-eedb-802b-8506dc111da7@gmail.com> <355FA9BA-CBE9-41AC-8FA6-B44C15C7420B@gmail.com> <58bb7a08-4595-f9b8-0be4-25bb471ca2db@gmail.com> <CAAedzxrMk10P8g0p5=1m8rANFy6+GvkA7+SrnWLKp3Do7sY5aw@mail.gmail.com> <d441f1cd-7b22-f94f-1fe2-4b12ab47ae21@gmail.com> <39456568-1DF0-4D51-8E94-0FDF3595EB31@consulintel.es> <58c5384b-d7d4-f89b-4e1c-f340d2af6630@gmail.com> <8AC03AD2-A7C0-48ED-BFD1-54AEF6A2C29B@consulintel.es> <75a6ea1b-de5d-5b8d-b3d9-d24edbb7bfad@gmail.com> <3521F710-56E4-4950-9EA0-6ECC58219F11@delong.com> <1c0b744f-05ef-6df0-9233-9e86d3de7c8e@gmail.com> <DD38869A-815E-4456-92E8-1F545CDCCB22@delong.com> <add60b73-17a3-ca99-39e1-e58b7002344e@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/g0ZEoE8sG6MKJg6b1KoiUyozKHg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:41:57 -0000

> But you cant have simultaneously CLAT and DHCPv6-PD on the same client.
> Because CLAT wants that to be a /64 prefix.  It will break when the
> client gets a /63.
> 
> Moreover, design suggestions from CLAT assume that /64 is sufficient.
> That is wrong - /64 is not sufficient.
> 
>> There are lots of cases where more than one solution to the same problem becomes a standards track RFC.
> 
> But one wont prohibit the other.
> 
> CLAT prohibits DHCPv6-PD.

RFC6877 section 6.3 states the opposite.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email