IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 14 October 2021 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 CC40D3A1649 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:16 -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, SPF_NONE=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=umn.edu
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 93gXJKl-pufv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A88243A164B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HV8mP3Cw7z9xZ2b for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:05:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lR2nEjRcfsn for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 19:05:09 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f197.google.com (mail-yb1-f197.google.com [209.85.219.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HV8mP1GZ7z9xZ2V for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 19:05:08 -0500 (CDT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4HV8mP1GZ7z9xZ2V
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4HV8mP1GZ7z9xZ2V
Received: by mail-yb1-f197.google.com with SMTP id v203-20020a25c5d4000000b005bb21580411so4947111ybe.19 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=diF7R3H6M+tdCt6PKrFWEiS9n1Om3pmPRA74gX3n5I0=; b=NPujJe6fmwGaU8mewcF09x4YpcQjgtD58/E9+/RTx0yjZeduXm8ff7Abg1jEadoQPs KX+z7/EgAIRZti3uH03MZe1XwFvDBVPH6sEMfQYZcRnVnRlHn5BR2cCLi6rUn/xldkWE 2MmWwN6Gf2sY5nsDfWrKb8bXmdAFketuzZbeHSniYm7F4/PLhPfBuoGoKQWnmj/Shqja v3dTVdbyidMz4Qeqd4xpwa2qOpyNFfEUCxVrl4Kvw6mOSYHjKV2KzXQMwY4jGXehri8H ubyda/bP+7l7SvZXgn+iqNPHIFdRiwTJ3Z0DFgwGqWv7046ay5noQqNsudZgok4OC1ov nTxA==
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=diF7R3H6M+tdCt6PKrFWEiS9n1Om3pmPRA74gX3n5I0=; b=KBv5AH3ANGcjTFgTtrFiuW6jF3IS2xjriUzV/OfKvppwgf7uru5BhPrfK2ZwZ0hymm eRAehWyNPh+ldWaGCNiFHITKo50hz94FZ1d37ltTKhwhkwvth7bOFd0rvr3X4/lXGYth sQSrQaRGNNB6O3Fl99oJfAyBlrfBJdq3YnQyxzVpMs6wYAwjWfsSyJZ/ETFE8MqOYkvi mT+nA5+mRg2M7OAttYtcifkTj+XpKL+E57w5Ci7rAKE4P5M03xyDOTEUgi58RxjEGzUJ kRQkaoKu5d4Da9uenOU8Em21CK0/GSHTGFNnkeBhwGuzTihpK4iy0E1IkYbTBHd8B9b1 74bw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ZoSvR/E9AWf9poIcduRv31txHdU4x2GvPT38QMeiYRGYKgQIx C9K1WU3CGFIHkhlbDpJYu8YuKRwRzUcdwFhTOEgEFfgP/GEJhiOEDDFg8EltEbEWBbPVFyJxWSt hKL/wgjYUQcKDFoa84LdThmmxCw==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2c45:: with SMTP id s66mr2857841ybs.270.1634169907722; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUXffywaqOsj7PkaVbyGMr3z0z0oZAmLCz4vjwLgJ3p7HBklQnIX+vBv49ioEQ6v3Xccz+iY/PrfPnJfLzw5o=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2c45:: with SMTP id s66mr2857802ybs.270.1634169907260; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EFC78F4B-873B-42EE-8DC5-04C29758B0D0@consulintel.es> <YVNhdioAbeO9p2/G@Space.Net> <CAKD1Yr2+Y59v81mPBn4Y3u0LRX7TzahbnaF1hVUZ+NSf0Jj_4g@mail.gmail.com> <20210930.082006.177771395.sthaug@nethelp.no> <d0c441c6-68fa-52ef-7c60-e8f0cff80ba0@gmail.com> <64E83A09-C4DC-428C-88D1-79FAD6AAB72E@delong.com> <d1e5aa61-c61b-6e5f-9c6f-50f88d7a28a2@gmail.com> <F4F2E2BA-C07C-457C-A244-8A3220B32226@delong.com> <C34C198D-51F5-4189-8913-305733B6AA90@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wAKoyC0pssr9To+cAHavCMEZGh9FHb+yG7x8rWw5cU5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wAKoyC0pssr9To+cAHavCMEZGh9FHb+yG7x8rWw5cU5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 19:04:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2medOLeCFCpSuUC9f+=Dn-kf8uN5RnkFKTS1T7uj9SUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3479d05ce44d405"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vEfYdNIEMXXibJ6H1dAu0j7Ys20>
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: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:05:17 -0000

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:16 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, 07:04 Simon, <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have seen no argument against
>> Android including standards compliance
>
>
> DHCPv6 is not required. See BCP 220.
>

Yes, DHCPv6 is not required for hosts to implement, but it is recommended
by RFC8504/BCP220

But then again, networks providing general propose hosts with more than one
IPv6 address is not required and is also only recommended by RFC7934/BCP204.

So I think we have a standoff or deadlock, can we find a way to break it?
How about we all agree to implement the IETF's recommendations in both
cases?

Personally, I think they are both very good recommendations.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email