Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 15 October 2021 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 1217F3A097F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 FgMokB9OpQUH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32e.google.com (mail-ot1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) (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 6A0313A0978 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id b4-20020a9d7544000000b00552ab826e3aso12244715otl.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ccwHMVtfXzPe8hjB4L3ljTjJrM0W3Krw/CUh8Z9k6zI=; b=O6EQkHQ2CZNpigyAWOIdWjKhAy01tvD1PzXaksO37FPFzieAQSSofyx8ctUE8RSKDs XFzzMgwmIfbUVgiAyelXh4uy2l/Sk9xwU+UoystZoI3tERLFJbNqTSSSvK5i5GEMY882 Q4zFV7UV9l1e1Yyt6dyk6VrIbrrDywLURvUHw4ZZpTNRyxL70jpBMg9yWlnrv8Oe3NSe BgkH0kQ0Qtv5AWzgIJcbx2GRf4EVMlcj14UL8JB193RyyNc6IJ1q2glQDd/F/4Y6fdfZ 7KbcncrpN9BuRSIAeVGgEodte5tAGTpA/BZZPebg7gKm+wLcqe0nBYuGylosmxPAnJPa 5RkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ccwHMVtfXzPe8hjB4L3ljTjJrM0W3Krw/CUh8Z9k6zI=; b=JGFHkwZMT0qNor1HnapSyJDmEwNwYazWEMP2KDv8Fy6P33kn8S5hZ57/15rl4LJ1/I YVLjZab5ZWQ1d5jbpWZv4ACZuXBBeEpcgsDy203N9E3WhnxnQSdxvUFmv0dJO0ef3Pvv U1AN+HoRKgZVE6ZFhH2XJBcRkpz5LVLuASR4Ea+yXK/ZGFtILdp2gnL5I6ehVbf5qRSr FmwOgnN5gjvbbZZxkkadq1m8eW52vjpBtirZptlrbsLPYkT5kEpHuHjwxpiPXAt8Xhme a4xGN7RvHx4u4348w2aMcE1uN8S/8A3CiWlPkZkPz8ykw49SjkYej3BldAyf8dqlnm66 ri2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Nc2XvGvXImHkqxPM2UOkWFpZM84MG9dDRq5qpWBR4OSuGxX8s FzxlOj32U57f+qBLQE2N8AxZUJ4kuN8/bomCDuWbfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqhjmF49VqKbK6VxOm3ugCwa9H0ZL2R7qsEoEJbfyJ8qvqwbbJ/2WQQFUvrbgHn8ooYKp5xuRygdfZNUZl9yc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:55b:: with SMTP id l27mr9091322otb.309.1634321848554; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPt1N1=wcJN+ucPR0x7NuG6DYk=Z6zdPEMSSg8L3GkE90-16KA@mail.gmail.com> <4577684E-FF06-4C48-B70A-FA832D28BE02@employees.org> <CAPt1N1kkHDheKVzPgCOR7u-Nix2d79A6tB-SQZ+cj3ZjV3Tx4A@mail.gmail.com> <YWnEjEcNo+M4tLAO@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <YWnEjEcNo+M4tLAO@Space.Net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:16:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mB90+S+vn5xH7N-SgGoNbS98Ny9hGeMtV6AzGh_4DesA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b683c05ce683589"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tisBeKk_13bslr8FyusUMYL0gZg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Oct 2021 18:17:34 -0000

Oh, yeah, sure. I was referring to individual address allocations, not
/64s. But even then, it would be better not to consume a /64 per host if
your ISP sucks and is just giving you a /60. In my home network, I'd want
to reserve the /56s for things like IoT networks (assuming I wanted my IoT
devices to be able to connect to the Internet, which I don't).

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:12 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 02:03:30PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > That said, we're comparing apples to oranges here. On a home network, the
> > operator is /never/ going to configure DHCPv6.
>
> DHCPv6-PD, for sure.
>
> Why shouldn't he?  IETF told operators and vendors that this is a good
> thing if you have router-behind-router in the home.
>
> If you are speaking about "subnet per device", this is not IA_NA/TA but PD.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
> Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>