IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 07 August 2017 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 EF70412708C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 B5c3WEi_Hc5W for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE1411201F2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6E170A2; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:34:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502102088; bh=/WDY/IG5pionVZa2iS/xgCAjcH+S3FjW/k11wlZ8m/E=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eKBIf2lu/XF/VJZEWnjABLuyzjJIcpNdj6t5d8NPQMQs+scKEFvkswYeQ21vwCddo cbN5y1yLHNhu1HYqCyXCjyCJp804WBun4o1q9d6fdlKmNC+tGVOZ31DmOCrMdYnuhQ cXwFfBXhGZ+ZyezosUUA+Em26mCJh3yC0FQHosac=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF51A1; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:34:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 12:34:48 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708071233230.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <150148445751.17707.15424999122129322815@ietfa.amsl.com> <E6AC9174-3D6E-4FAD-B84B-B7E58FB149BC@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xEs6RauD6Oo_NbqOh+FRVAu3NuveewSvRx7g1hS2-ToQ@mail.gmail.com> <94BC4E17-D490-4F50-9E99-2AAA081CD43C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zR_bWPqOHM7-RNsPX78np45UV=J67YD5gbpoCPUaLkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB14455C-F00E-49A4-936F-03BD44C4D42C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com> <4939D55E-D37D-4551-9EB0-916FBACBC2BD@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <9bd9f886-f53b-109f-d998-1d4c7adaf3b1@gmail.com> <B6A257C9-7E8A-452D-9C0F-0B10A31990CB@thehobsons.co.uk> <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-50746663-1502102088=:2261"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tmVat1WWSlwek95dqBZbaGeS7OY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 10:34:53 -0000

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Tim Chown wrote:

> The question though, as and as you say it’s not one really in the IETF’s 
> scope, more the RIR communities, is if a site has a /48, and uses it up 
> (or 16,384 /64s of it up) implementing 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, will that be deemed 
> appropriate use to allow a further assignment?

If a RIR deems this not appropriate use, I will personally engage the 
policy development groups of these RIRs, advocating change to the policy.

I don't think I'll be alone.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email