IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 50F9911E81FD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1j92w8EoEm4w for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AD821F9C88 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id up14so4040914obb.39 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=nmYZQwznwhb/Fe8+aAfRfVhSx87L9PsUuxnxkk0Q3k4=; b=hhU451ynjVQsK0M3Daj3HRKEeAuBk6qMlujYhc0BftFKYksHNYzCSOsOK733yMyq+e jbgg0+xltuF+KVgWP2J0LkIT5VeIrrspxQsuOukH0jrPX6p2cfB7BMmU3mmPr46yCdED efplM8Bhypz1pTVUYzRZJlNhRcqNV45xL14r4WYv/lmVHM7/keSwEXeftLwWAyu7BT0v L+c3KRYWV5tuLNY6uDt40s/jZJ3Itfs/eWHD7LWa8IFxGMUoGVHm0+oz0aLosUSn6huU 2bW1gZjNoq0+hxxwqeFUc6uabtjkRYuFUbEDNLzK0EF+n/sN0MGVEimIQLkPqNKhTbqW c1gA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=nmYZQwznwhb/Fe8+aAfRfVhSx87L9PsUuxnxkk0Q3k4=; b=phzkaveBx3/SPdeIEyhq5L36JU62si3/oHA0JcyvpYGoAHfvtGfN6KzXwx0YeFbIUk hff91BuIXDm4/VlcDipxH2Tp2PFzm/X+rHygcz5KgQL1xwW9zs2oSMR2pHvjA2wJOKet En1n9Gwz/HNNtrArbWkiRQ0TO+0z598EsYbzRHPoIFZ4oxzJl/WKnpASJzE+BrPkhTo+ h8S7EAGRlINfLOGhD1u2X5aj7KHr+qSDbbwGsQaXHMMLRo2uL49H4j6x0DVxlPPc1rvA QggJAY3qe79Kh+I4BbNLpuE+gvXn8bDKMHA9pZHYAFW4O3twaf44fN0zPaKKoHaIUyVA oiDA==
X-Received: by 10.50.127.145 with SMTP id ng17mr189805igb.6.1375193441493; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.144 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca>
References: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:10:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr27Y_wp1f89=gvarUc2q77p9LaKr_y-HJeCzYFPcuqMyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a079e94164804e2bb2c77"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluc4Oy+gXK/k8AB56bLbi1ddEDS8IpnAvaq+OAoVFh1K9w/zHkNY3y1d3uT8bYoovQRe6RFSbDNDwY4ihQ6+xeANJBtHr89y1mAbWAHIhoKvUg2JKVWFXJqvn+8WMMJ2JTnZU4jqaTAFhrP9GPm4lMr1/2zktybzyVHJ1AUnZVbJ6U22XjzMPcaCOfSWRjmZKx8Vqs
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne@t-mobile.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 30 Jul 2013 14:10:47 -0000

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>wrote:

> Cameron, which scenario does the Android AOSP use?
> Are the concerns about applications caring about the prefix length real?
>

I doubt that the prefix length is a real concern. Do we have any examples
of this?

I sure prefer scenario 1.  I think that MIF-aware applications will be
> happier with two v6 addresses.
>

Why? One would hope that a MIF-aware application would understand that it's
possible to have an IP address on one interface and use it on another
interface.

(I think that privacy extensions are useless for a device/network which
> likely
> has the same /64 all the time)
>

It doesn't have the same /64 all the time. When you lose coverage or switch
to wifi, when you come back to the 3G network you'll get a different prefix.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email