IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 04 January 2016 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2251B1A90E6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 s0ShJBWY-4VM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82CAA1A90DB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k1so128031182vkb.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:48:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xnDdq4fO7JEaQ2r3IlwxiMeZjzzd/PBonRRIMOj2Vks=; b=nh30cZttwzaWRRAMU6Y5XzDdgcmXbHRv7bYGM6EuRSxWuI6pl/1kcmZkEjSMNB2Ni5 TRWefqSx2f0m0fOEojqWA9irSzXurhQWgzPt9dqakwkjfXLFJyyvQcPQOG1eVdAqTbRC Q+DmUteEXESi996yz+ov9LtwgOGApwLVecgk9Ov1xd0dnkTM0zwHEDWG9ZW7E9SVlmju xO3Ut+8qVu6+KXqeDzI/EdUQIPD0/6CtjLndKO+87HoJVoHr2DAfzzv3mKQHycqA1Klw DhZpO38SZBGJM+3xBk0VEcScP2GefftuEgbwz3D4pSd6DhQx43uB3kPUGzkKmzZ4ERVt VDZA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.107.138 with SMTP id k10mr57931201vki.27.1451936893557; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.99.1 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.99.1 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
References: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 06:48:13 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zFr-4W-JXFSpmtEE_YAkjNQBG8T9kEaPmPGmMP6w_Bzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11478cb8c6e27d05288766c6"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jhtPmJ2MxE37Q70sD21xO9VoaUw>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 04 Jan 2016 19:48:23 -0000

Hi,

On 4 Jan 2016 06:00, <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> And now for something a little different. I'd like to invite focused
> discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, which we
> adopted at IETF 94
>
> Slides are at
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-v6ops-4.pdf.
>
>

I agree with points others have made.

The title sounds like a BCP title, however the content reads like a
recipe/howto for a specific deployment scenario.

I think there are general and non-Wifi specific parts that should be
separated. Reflecting on the number and content of recent discussions
around hosts using DHCPv6-PD, I think there needs to be an ID on that
topic. Fred's draft seems to be mostly there, although multicast/MLD needs
to be covered.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost/

Finally, although it in some ways is out of scope, I'd never want to see a
BCP of any kind proposing that all of Wifi's security mechanisms are turned
off, because WiFi traffic is so easy to packet capture everything when
security is switched off.

Regards,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email