IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 7D3E91AD0B0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 SG2I0wMr00JU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C8F1ACEF0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:26:05 +0200
Message-Id: <m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20150723130715.12113.47480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55B1ED14.6030501@gmail.com> <m1ZIZ4w-0000CbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:11:24 +0900 ." <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:26:05 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mq1q_DZ3NhGhZTRy2AdLE-Cdu_o>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
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, 27 Jul 2015 08:26:08 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:11:24 +0900 you wrote:
>In practice, in a homenet network it will make sense to use SLAAC instead
>of DHCPv6 PD. The recommendation for PD is to use DHCPv6 PD if a network
>"requires explicit requests for address space", i.e., if SLAAC is not
>available.

I didn't keep track, did homenet explictly pick SLAAC over DHCPv6?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email