IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 July 2013 11:45 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 E01A621F9DFB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Ohnyu-DerL-z for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B4121F99D0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559F92017B; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id CD76F63A7C; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:44:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD10636AD; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:44:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com, v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:44:04 -0400
Message-ID: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: [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 11:45:45 -0000

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

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

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

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email