IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Sat, 16 October 2021 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 35BCC3A0A3D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.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 XMRYbEwFu4FL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056983A0A39 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2001:470:496b:0:5973:e987:1d7e:88d5]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 19G7XdIK1148640 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:33:39 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 19G7XdIK1148640
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1634369623; bh=BnccGNOY/TMhln0SbYMOfJCSh8il1uC1HpLvlHOwWT8=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=xWcsR4uNfZEOwJ7jnYYN+la2PaEA9ytFtX8GIO5zVI0w+PoP/z0w50PVh7dC2vpDD fWHlRp4R1qHE/0b408i9VS3pLFT8fQeJ35+ZOea2OtTtCdLfd5yZVon5KN8QCMpSz1 88OHInP1Li4uMYXQhPWTGYQ/t2OO5akF7fCsmKl0=
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Message-Id: <6FD302E7-1620-4612-ACAD-037A5ABC29ED@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5A5566D8-A04D-4A91-9752-F54F44D5B53F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:33:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mB90+S+vn5xH7N-SgGoNbS98Ny9hGeMtV6AzGh_4DesA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
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> <CAPt1N1mB90+S+vn5xH7N-SgGoNbS98Ny9hGeMtV6AzGh_4DesA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Sat, 16 Oct 2021 00:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tu6n6MmortytVuIIfI-1Cagrkxc>
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: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 07:34:07 -0000


> On Oct 15, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> 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).

I’d argue it would be better to demand that your ISP stop sucking and failing that, choose a better ISP if possible.

Owen

> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:12 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email