IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 23 November 2020 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 27A303A1213; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 h0hBE2-J1ZJb; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7E33A120B; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5512E389B6; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:13:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lbv2l5vB7jUI; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:13:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30033389B5; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:13:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA247D; Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:12:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQCm4U06huxns6qGKPAa-MqbeaHpjZAhpBuv-S13xo44Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABNhwV3fj-e9bEemivcNovnD3SZvKm8ZjFKp7BmusnPcgyznFQ@mail.gmail.com> <7ED24CC7-A719-4E9B-A5DC-3BA8EA7E3929@consulintel.es> <CABNhwV19neE3U_AisNp2nDUF4bWB8P8xHNEznDevZLE9amFTRA@mail.gmail.com> <0F78C18B-7AD6-4AC7-AF1F-CA1ADCDEA6AB@employees.org> <CABNhwV3bCss9y7cT6w2i+LKWBh1viPSXBM-CTaK+GVDyPS2D8w@mail.gmail.com> <9D7C4A75-ABB6-4194-9834-9BC898EAC8A9@employees.org> <CABNhwV0-FZpPs84+RVB81=5H5QCEaxF0EUj9tcV+bdOu00RE2A@mail.gmail.com> <fb87c22c-388d-0492-1ea7-018655353f9b@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV0TbS7Kiynb=jvczJFDyy=uMfd-he+d0ii7aU5AnsUKeA@mail.gmail.com> <9ff71dd2-4901-0d61-b41c-0f65118c8dda@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV1pSiEuaOZGN5ErR=KETjD1fVb58YM1EEd+mf7RtOenQw@mail.gmail.com> <83cb8c2d-d2eb-2cd4-eb8d-466daa59ac75@joelhalpern.com> <7a15b2d2-f4bd-b6f1-0825-1f86e46ef4ce@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yvXCfn8bxxk7mT7MozmCyexmVKNCOvktf2sV-S7WPxig@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQCm4U06huxns6qGKPAa-MqbeaHpjZAhpBuv-S13xo44Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:12:25 -0500
Message-ID: <28561.1606101145@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/h4TQle3dUB1aamzOtnfDCGueczc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:12:31 -0000

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Don't they think DHCPv6 infrastructure will scale? Is it just that they
    >> don't know how to scale it?
    >>

    > Definitely do not know how. I had a look at the dhcpv6 rfc and it was over
    > 150 pages long. Longer than bgp, mpls, ipv6 ... tl; dr.

Yes, because it details with dozens of different things.
IPv6-PD is only one section, and on circuits (vs ethernet), almost of the
lifetime management stuff is moot.

Also, you can't write BGP4 and read only one document, so your comparison is
just not on.

I've written PD-only DHCPv6 for a BMS (PPPoE).

The daemon is about 2000 lines of C, including test cases.
Most of the logic is about learning about new interfaces and decoding Radius
TLVs.  (Not really open source, sorry)

I thought about writing an LWIG document on this, but decided not to.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email