Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 01:32 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 441A21241F8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:32:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 REIMl7s0UHIC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22e.google.com (mail-it0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) (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 36161120713 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d16so4489188itj.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:32:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a+34V9m0Pu+OIzz0KPcYcVNmeQgv9lEwYhFhoGNP6m8=; b=cnlJCzw2uQRCnEYqfp2WMNfR+paX8kKk4KCLHgA1fxgbdrvsFDPRwqitx/RqXQTMnA fqnKMBxzrVVsbtyEqldbC5P8+n+W+FfZPe8D2ZhdMbRnKuz4MbBFh4ooQuk7mI6X5IvD hgPQ6futFQO0xd63gsRI7b+dzhFwUX28MOC/018a80WzdIUeN1HoAJd0ZkmfYdkoT4wD 9QsOXj41obbLIUFhmOW1g6j6ccGM71W3/wkVy/t4meLDX8Ppd2xeu1OiEE4qaulCY7Hh tQ1v0zBSxvgMNyBwnZ9PoXijl5o7+LUsV3qySfIhXij1KA6lRHukzDCq4LCKx8p0aQlO 6Qvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a+34V9m0Pu+OIzz0KPcYcVNmeQgv9lEwYhFhoGNP6m8=; b=Mye2IM3r4GoFrkwTktcuH9V4OQQX69AZ5h46GNMY8mRSING4C+JMrnp4+xyPs331ce gE8kdTKLYwabnwOLxHHiTuiEs2f1RM7/2e5in8P7iHBgInd5z5AAnU42joeT0yPsWXr0 3oDmtnx7TT8yDJfdWWzq0CU6KpRHiRgV5HdH8i5hph0vAhndTB96dikpRFpmt4FF6ruV KYQOvc03QfdaUkWh+s2tZ0GQ/OZ8FHldv53ZNO8t/Fi4W+0DOXEw4H6ykbH8dAp3Q1g0 XDQF6Hwpmxgfy4TD7jElrFvXlppmII3ctX/kZlAekkikEZDqKMHlYEHTWgAAbKQXTno+ 7O+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJwD5h9hE5thXi5Cngec3Jo7tUqw9XVBMdhzRRd6zVcvJCzd9/w dWs0h+mdm1vxiDjrtln1xlMN/FwwTJ9ZKXZKBsiAzA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos83hzQMQ+dkMAT9Wh2Sxg5NNa9oHCB5CaLeo9ejdfvlnRUHWSgP8x7Dq9MwauNoPDpe9yemI/RjC1QybpM1Vg=
X-Received: by 10.36.65.10 with SMTP id x10mr1635627ita.124.1515115946041; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:32:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.149.149 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:32:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <066901d385ab$64d663b0$2e832b10$@gmail.com>
References: <B7CB2B98-F069-425D-A096-AADA0297B34C@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0r=OZKWHatcaV5ZfXUcJhTrzGqnd6wno7SLur9cJzF5w@mail.gmail.com> <066901d385ab$64d663b0$2e832b10$@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:32:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2GjXKM53rJJwRzX7RyrCG8u+KZ0TTGuFv=NefHsKRxrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c14ad2c29a510561fd6b03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sD3KJH0IiMcndcp6_Mr3olDnDAA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:32:29 -0000

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:28 AM, <7riw77@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As the implementer of devices that are sometimes IPv6 routers, I object
> to the
> > requirement that such devices MUST implement DHCPv6. The reason is that
> > implementing DHCPv6 will degrade the user experience.
> > See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg26286.html
> > for an example of how that can happen.
>
> Being required to implement DHCPv6 is far different than being required to
> _turn it on by default_ -- the draft specifically does not require DHCPv6
> to be turned on by default for this very reason.


Help me understand. Are you saying that mobile hotspots should implement
DHCPv6 because this draft says so, but then never turn it on because it's
bad for their users?