From nobody Tue May 5 04:01:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB9D3A163E; Tue, 5 May 2020 04:01:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: v6ops@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.129.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: v6ops@ietf.org Message-ID: <158867647096.3806.218661542156997314@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 04:01:11 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-02.txt X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 11:01:11 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash- Renumbering Events Authors : Fernando Gont Jan Zorz Richard Patterson Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2020-05-05 Abstract: In scenarios where network configuration information related to IPv6 prefixes becomes invalid without any explicit signaling of that condition (such as when a CPE crashes and reboots without knowledge of the previously-employed prefixes), nodes on the local network will continue using stale prefixes for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems. This document documents this problem, and discusses operational workarounds that may help to improve network robustness. Additionally, it highlights areas where further work may be needed. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue May 5 07:37:49 2020 Return-Path: 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 6FA5B3A0787; Tue, 5 May 2020 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, 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=juniper.net header.b=UgRBAY1S; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=QLjln7tf 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 HNKmisA0OSjf; Tue, 5 May 2020 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 C03D23A074E; Tue, 5 May 2020 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 045Eb0FT025089; Tue, 5 May 2020 07:37:41 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=IY3By5Q+IjSpIGNeoBVoxeWC4y7ut4vgVVW69n0RwQY=; b=UgRBAY1S01FDH/3vqhV2j+XiDWInJKSIoGp7OuZdj1VbfyIVvI742Fkd1KJpP8xyS00W ZpR4HVmy3cV9xiVMWSq6gqfzk8H6CVWLrjUxnVIy3KKLVnkzq6mPOQoNSGP9X9s/AT5S 8Ex4ffDBeW67lq7dkR4qVx5JjiLC5EXAWBT/SaA9ZFGZrgys4jmLTwSxRAYpwxQm2h5P ZJiHOrsJLMAu1ZgTHJcsNMJFTqeadbjm2oe3IA+PQkDIsBR07HMN/ZUAu57y+eRVpNJK XWLheuSADoy59WVmSSPh4oTKwTYKDL9aKVaR3UMzetn20t/4ldx9XQYpBkxn2GuWFFNR Nw== Received: from nam11-dm6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam11lp2176.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.57.176]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30s7vqd0xc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 07:37:41 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LFzXyx0o1EWh1Bm7Lm8TlLINR0wOLmtOAzlr/JzvODi7AZP/XlujGL6E6/iFms4U1MnvNTJFD81Yq7+kDNeM8+O8OATxvRA1dOfL25Mblzw1bfD4tCzCb2CpupJCxENts8HL4lO31lMPyXtwkAH6wsTfF2gyHYNx02ClFcXr3GUQHoL98O+3ivOmwAaUNLSlZcgK+ndxFMnB32HzoXUO+XpIaD8eXk1qdzD1iaig69cY1G9R0mXtHZIVI3/H0gznNAuOWGa/qIu0YscssMl7l1KE6MTU1feKlDa12Qana1YQyH2NvAGK+NUHTgYltnFYmn4H/f4SQ7/odiDMFnL1yQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IY3By5Q+IjSpIGNeoBVoxeWC4y7ut4vgVVW69n0RwQY=; b=lgY1xmgzknm//FUDdmlWA93vezMUXOaFlJ+Ch0Hgliycp3e9Dpc55bra55eBwJpfQtCiOiO3LRByBqZuecEl1nHvB2kmVh5VMCUHJF/vmT5qNvKyABMvKf7WcPJYjmQKKVJBHtjiLncCFcREdVS8DavG87LMH4/0QpJB4f/oxiGwuHUPUrd1UABK6EBBDZ2m1sLxky3pUyxNKqa9alUS1aa3SssoDVW1RQAFWX2aBDIXBLqWvdW1UR8J2EWZdfK1wHyNmUEpLOmB7aHgAqIGNsMuzr15Yhvc8DSLKEV7vZPfAlFJrWIq0zDAZu0R8ccpydZ3CWpKr7BEjqdLxAz5DA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IY3By5Q+IjSpIGNeoBVoxeWC4y7ut4vgVVW69n0RwQY=; b=QLjln7tfz+43+A99RHwuk1Wvbjl2NuwcfnTRuzOmsmz2Z5kHIhbNDNSSX0HN84TVirtvSR6GisyMZvkOgbMDP/oRk/MBFaujAJG/vtFIVLv3F+k/yDStrp2kvhg0hVMvFS+4rFsZoaYtx9iGXTBb2cirDO8pQJRGZ8ydx5dM6a4= Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB7180.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1df::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.18; Tue, 5 May 2020 14:37:38 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.025; Tue, 5 May 2020 14:37:38 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: OPSEC , "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings Thread-Index: AQHWItMI3sTRoI/sR06quN6A10+TDqiZj0+w Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 14:37:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <158857581528.28405.17372040856513106617@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Owner=rbonica@juniper.net; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-05T14:37:28.8699551Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Business Use Only; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=d1052a7b-14e3-442c-b984-19686f285fc4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Extended_MSFT_Method=Automatic dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.4.0.45 dlp-reaction: no-action authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f8360295-a322-4b95-1146-08d7f101dc24 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB7180: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 0394259C80 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(33430700001)(6506007)(53546011)(86362001)(7696005)(5660300002)(478600001)(9686003)(186003)(55016002)(2906002)(66476007)(966005)(76116006)(33656002)(66446008)(64756008)(66946007)(66556008)(110136005)(8936002)(71200400001)(316002)(52536014)(26005)(450100002)(33440700001)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: dZKvUfFcLjecY525YdAbKhk+Y8xSN3Wt5E7vGRqXiYjz3bouuDBXsGxXEALV50wDmO2kZ10fCrAOL72YyzzWgW0Rvm3Pi+9SR+Savvvl9lEFjpIGEY4pU4YgysSptnQB6RPV5l8KjHKng2f2svPnko7AzRT+j6TuDU7pj3J1So+W31y5trylsxmOSruq2YOm96HxaztB1vk4SfS3gN66pFVxeZsYf4Z8CZ+930/1JirgrB+6ljnyFg+6BNXdNOk7wRk2AwEty9U5OBgER6n5vy6WS96lfRxX0pSawa9SrY3Vnarnu6qaWvHyVVV1CJLIdo+mh9z7ixOF4CDle5gQIkDhlkCiMe2/Eqft6z4aWUdO5hjLjL0PT/qDQCnZ9JEKso9kruI7n/HCFQn8srTn/iKa1IY80YoOmPX+0c6DAjV1PqPh/08FDRthA3xLj1fvgaL+2FGVJnINcIM9D1j7oGBeKcZxwjl9OnAFWifOdgH8TnTf4agyZWapGsoFgDDQWg8g+Y2ImThksDX28ap/FdU4FrhxmTB+MeenuRRn/fwwwNacQv/PWASDKUs5u/MmX2IzQyOSk9e+qqFtnVZwvutb9kvXRtttkxqG/wipCGMXbVCqiV7BnDihoM9RnXzR66BlKRISOjYN1rh3RUe4GDLXnSpbGkM4GggQ9fW3uaNjwbUwsXujQ8VDdasjMKILIZPgxBj7XydQz5mazr8VAAQSz7YzEzsos+w/GlMUKmlomY6qN047OZ67EGSEHNHCR2k8SsCgicsBLqVOBXyzxL3hSkzrIb+Rak6IqIeOKmA= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR05MB6348A82C61B76058868468D7AEA70DM6PR05MB6348namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f8360295-a322-4b95-1146-08d7f101dc24 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 May 2020 14:37:38.5667 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: /e28kmpOmRKgC6tTlSMDpLCKnb+3HeRuT+N/sPWePVkXq3k6uytZda4wStCq2IPezwQQey1EqwrPlgWb/v21kQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB7180 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_08:2020-05-04, 2020-05-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005050119 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] FW: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 14:37:44 -0000 --_000_DM6PR05MB6348A82C61B76058868468D7AEA70DM6PR05MB6348namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please take this survey... Juniper Business Use Only From: WGChairs On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 7:48 AM To: IETF WG Chairs Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meeting= s [External Email. Be cautious of content] Please circulate this to your working group lists. The survey data will be = very important as we plan future IETF meetings. Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message: From: IETF Executive Director > Subject: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings Date: May 4, 2020 at 3:03:35 AM EDT To: "IETF Announcement List" > Reply-To: ietf108planning@ietf.org This is a reminder that we need the IETF community to help us plan for the = possibility that one or more upcoming IETF meetings in 2020 and possibly 20= 21 may not be able to go ahead in person. You can help us with this by fil= ling out the following survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5328FFJ So far we have 114 responses and we would ideally like 500 or more. The survey contains the following pages and will take 15-20 minutes to comp= lete: 1. Welcome 2. Online IETF 107 and the subsequent virtual interims 3. Replacing a cancelled in-person meeting 4. Online meeting format and timezone 5. Replicating humming 6. Replicating the hallway environment 7. Fees 8. Thanks and anything else We run the survey in anonymous mode which means that we only see data that = you explicitly provide. Thank you in advance for your help. -- Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair Jay Daley, IETF Executive Director Colin Perkins, IRTF Chair _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce Juniper Business Use Only --_000_DM6PR05MB6348A82C61B76058868468D7AEA70DM6PR05MB6348namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Please take this survey…

 

 

 

Juniper Business Use Only

From: WGChairs <wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org&= gt; On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 7:48 AM
To: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF = meetings

 

<= span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Lato",sans-serif;colo= r:black">[External Email. Be cautious of content]

 

Please circulate this to your working group lists. T= he survey data will be very important as we plan future IETF meetings.

 

Thanks,

Alissa

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

From: IETF Execu= tive Director <exec-director@i= etf.org>

Subject: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF = meetings

Date: May 4, 202= 0 at 3:03:35 AM EDT

To: "IETF= Announcement List" <ietf= -announce@ietf.org>

 

This is a reminder that we need the IETF community t= o help us plan for the possibility that one or more upcoming IETF meetings = in 2020 and possibly 2021 may not be able to go ahead in person.  You = can help us with this by filling out the following survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5328FFJ

So far we have 114 responses and we would ideally like 500 or more.

The survey contains the following pages and will take 15-20 minutes to comp= lete:

1. Welcome
2. Online IETF 107 and the subsequent virtual interims
3. Replacing a cancelled in-person meeting
4. Online meeting format and timezone
5. Replicating humming
6. Replicating the hallway environment
7. Fees
8. Thanks and anything else

We run the survey in anonymous mode which means that we only see data that = you explicitly provide.

Thank you in advance for your help.

--
Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
Jay Daley, IETF Executive Director
Colin Perkins, IRTF Chair

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

 


Juniper Business Use Only

--_000_DM6PR05MB6348A82C61B76058868468D7AEA70DM6PR05MB6348namp_-- From nobody Tue May 5 15:57:44 2020 Return-Path: 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 3DA553A0C1E for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:57:41 -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=helix-net-nz.20150623.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 YVliopY5U4YB for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 D94C63A0C1C for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id c16so165606ilr.3 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:57:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=L92SwMfM9yGbuCzGFP/ffOKGfEwevC/1daAdetdaLx4=; b=PgA111eChb3gPcMNu6eKmLKSVVM5tc21fqRQPPGPDRHh2Wa1AIYEcqXQfSR+/swNlv 8qhpKF4T9cfWtJGj9cMZTEbF1sQsagYf3dBnxeQz2TYyX0BWI3UaOirV5v7mtPwJ1vb4 j7Lb3OGT8iWcLIthD/e0IXldzsgDdhGmmGelKnC9rh52HBOJD9+Q9wBEnKIQiA/jr1jP 8MqhMJEsoENpmGA0PmbmEGR0Y+dEywnyiCbknLjhy8rvVGq6sLizVrOUUPYoAx2TQJg3 Le1pAWx1CssNnbrMg8UVtkqKGhRVcOw7WXUqurOhtUtVGbbowYFyanl4lGspcFJdj6uh NWvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L92SwMfM9yGbuCzGFP/ffOKGfEwevC/1daAdetdaLx4=; b=fH/JQYVRB4MhSBpJKmm95H2A0Brsf5lS9h/iG7c5hVNHu3aVXbrXZsjgln5/+DYwLU dJBJEDmAIngHQLKkmRP4jXjP5rJRcLua2KgWHPgfx5AcWb+N0uroHULEuDxns6zQOTol uq2AhVkIVvWMzVin8PSFcZcm3JGQPyXHuPW3zOFM5OQl5R4iDuEVQJyspbO8SWW/mwhK x6/vh0+HFKx7BcnYGX7AQiHfobdGdoSOgRv2cP0Ktviz/R3xQuIuThMGYOGsv+nl4dpj o4oFv+VYSqecXDZQYgnsT0N7yAVC98y4BXXTjTBGc6KC+dCOot5fxpxuWgSnQPXIshZk x1bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYEiKn20e+jLQkSZezn0EtP1y8kLHLzLpHTZKiAgCIBczc6VdSN 8g2vEmIOmNIeAiOUDSdAiPxDCtCLxIQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKpuGRzmZOfxtkkIdj+3pdOlVakPMGX2usIPOQ7GstE6O+xNmhnq4aQyrNxijlaz+/JOtaEBw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca81:: with SMTP id t1mr6029320ilo.187.1588719456601; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com. [209.85.166.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v9sm139463iol.28.2020.05.05.15.57.34 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 May 2020 15:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id w11so152530iov.8 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e413:: with SMTP id u19mr2663655iog.206.1588719454537; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:57:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <040b3cee-b51f-cac0-7c99-14a37fba7874@si6networks.com> <006D0357-766F-4CC6-9EA7-3A16720B3A46@employees.org> <5079EE4E-D48F-4C8A-ABBC-FB71DDFFC003@delong.com> <94021F65-ADBC-43E8-997C-4F0FD25EB5F0@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <94021F65-ADBC-43E8-997C-4F0FD25EB5F0@delong.com> From: Richard Patterson Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 23:57:23 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Owen DeLong Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org list" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc501f05a4ee92f4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 22:57:41 -0000 --000000000000bc501f05a4ee92f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 03:27, Owen DeLong wrote: > In general, an ISP using DHCP to hand out > fixed prefixes should be choosing pretty long lease times (on the order > of weeks if not a month or more, ideally something approximating the > length of time for which you=E2=80=99ve paid). > > Even with RADIUS-driven fixed-prefix leases, the initial DHCPv6 Solicit (and less frequently the Renews), are often used for authentication in a fixed-line broadband IPoE environment. If the BNG/Server/Relay undergoes maintenance or otherwise loses session state, the CPE router will then be left with a stale lease until the user manually reboots/reconnects or the Valid Lifetime expires. This is something we are trying to mitigate with draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-healt= h and draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements --000000000000bc501f05a4ee92f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 03:27, Owen DeLong= <owen@delong.com> wrote:
<= /div>
In general, an ISP using DHCP to hand out
fixed prefixes should be choosing pretty long lease times (on the order
of weeks if not a month or more, ideally something approximating the
length of time for which you=E2=80=99ve paid).

Even with RADIUS-driven fixed-prefix leases, the initial DHCPv6= Solicit (and less frequently the Renews), are often used for authenticatio= n in a fixed-line broadband IPoE environment.=C2=A0
If the BN= G/Server/Relay undergoes maintenance or otherwise loses session state, the = CPE router will then be left with a stale lease until the user manually reb= oots/reconnects or the Valid Lifetime expires.=C2=A0 This is something we a= re trying to mitigate with=C2=A0draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health and=C2=A0draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements


--000000000000bc501f05a4ee92f4-- From nobody Tue May 5 20:16:58 2020 Return-Path: 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 8A33E3A0D17 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:16:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_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=cht.com.tw 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 1fEJLmDdySa7 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan15.cht.com.tw (scan15.cht.com.tw [202.39.160.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A0D3A0D16 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:16:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=cht.com.tw; s=bill; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@cht.com.tw; t=1588735011; x=1591327011; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fWYtEiZgwwf7nKocxpp02yNr0qCeSVfjZfE9KDo2tj8=; b=laB5qAib3/+F6SvTgIX21Z90DS5FTYpSkST2YT9Lu+VyhAnrjnopy+vrXQPS5Zpf UT4COsszw0eT6gQwwjyxoKAkqTN2FufdwevblWKzK6uPvqyVpHQaGvYzVLjvc0/o E+XUUUPU6kJ30Zk8qXY2fY6ettGI9F82UF7pZgnYXZ0=; X-AuditID: 0aa00769-9c9ff70000001856-dd-5eb22c235c13 Received: from scanrelay5.cht.com.tw ( [10.160.7.110]) by scan15.cht.com.tw (CHT Outgoing ESMTP Mail Server) with SMTP id 25.85.06230.32C22BE5; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:16:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from email.cht.com.tw (unknown [10.174.192.6]) by scanrelay5.cht.com.tw (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 79CFC30000090 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:16:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw (10.174.192.5) by EXMSN6.app.corp.cht.com.tw (10.174.192.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1779.2; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:16:50 +0800 Received: from EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw ([fe80::f101:bf2c:15c:c595]) by EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw ([fe80::f101:bf2c:15c:c595%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:16:50 +0800 From: =?big5?B?prar26Zw?= To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 Thread-Index: AdYjU+6Oihvot3y6QSiWssKNZofgvw== Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 03:16:49 +0000 Message-ID: <11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96af@cht.com.tw> Accept-Language: zh-HK, zh-TW, en-US Content-Language: zh-TW X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.144.169.153] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-12.5.0.2039-8.5.1020-25338.007 x-tm-as-result: No-22.521400-8.000000-10 x-tmase-matchedrid: ls1+C1BQP6RHW+94FA8JF8K1Ib9JAALxrogFtKd/P7cLBZEuqIL9SpO9 mQGx4jC3Sa7i4WMGYwF/2SsgU8jyNW7vEKjEI8LygNylVbI/EAyoCf7IdvPAJzAx/HIgP92dgV0 45u17QdcSK6JzGSKc0tAAI+C3I6/Fk6m3AN0zFCCIUoAEwa39/PxeH3fk9hIOl32P5ZifvYaNBv RmKMdxcJfkHFNE2DEXBRrAWwx0NQW1Z4m77UDTHdMrcx6d6fiWR4XBe9rB9l2BQycBk7c7j8+36 IiLxQVLhYYl/W8D8sBpvI0kxLpc0di3Oq+8MQKnyZHnIMmQ+Dh02ZC6RJyIuAL+e4+Xk/QW327S K1D82RQ17vKdxiFcPJr2RmvEvo0wbKtBp+mHX1gOsNNBnlgRWn0tCKdnhB58ZnHerMQW1W/3PDi XO/tFSUvIf+DneKFOh5nNc9GK036HH/OTTjHeKilHmWv4G/EhbR2N6BoQe5I= x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No x-tmase-result: 10--22.521400-8.000000 x-tmase-version: SMEX-12.5.0.2039-8.5.1020-25338.007 x-tm-snts-smtp: 0BA7220623B8D25946D0BF365A6DA10C955450F8CA3E2A7BA0161F19313C7B4D2000:8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96afchtcomtw_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCtYA9T1dZZ1OcQedMJYvTx/YyOzB6LFny kymAMaqB0SYxLy+/JLEkVSEltTjZVik5o0Q3JbM4OScxMze1SDc1L11JITPFVslESaEgJzE5 NTc1r8RWKbGgIDUvRcmOSwED2ACVZeYppOYl56dk5qXbKnkG++taWJha6hoq2QXkpCYWpyok pSokppRlFqemKCRskMm4dEe1YLNKxbopUxkbGD8qdDFycEgImEhMvBHbxcjFISSwnVGiYe4R dgjnGKNE99dtUM4XRolZy38xQjiHGSXuf25n7mLk5GAT0JX4sH0RO4gtIqAqcfrpZbA4s4C2 xKJ1d1lAbGEBJ4kTS/4wQ9S4Sxz8cR7K1pNovriVDcRmEVCR2LB2MVicV8BSYvuFbrCZjEDx ZWdXs0DMFJc4d7EVLC4hICCxZA/EHAkBUYmXj/+xQthKEtfe/oWqsZB4vfwjVFxDov/pBbAH JAQmsUicXjWLCSKhIHFu6xk2CFteYv/LKcyQcFGT2HwxGCJsInFyzwmoOWES7/8dY4S4J0Hi 5KSNLBA3C0qcnPmEZQKjzCwkp85CUjYLSRlEXEPiW+dCJghbUWJK90OoenWJ3U8aoGxtiWUL XzMvYGRfxShYnJyYZ2iqB0w5esn5uXol5ZsYIckucwfjwfmOhxiZOBgPMUpwMCuJ8PL82Bgn xJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iNEUGM4TmaVEk/OByTavJN7Q2NLYwtDIwMzY3MJCSZxXZPqqOCGB dGAizU5NLUgtgulj4uCUamA8q/Cf42/YE4bnKsx3Crxm3+3g/6nns/v1ffn3Vy+FxB3NeT/x 3aGzGifzlk2+l335q3CbwylN8+P+59f2/EhdKxm371Vg3u6l3S+uvfm3I/1AetXUFbv37JEU WT6h2PxMxHxHq3reoHiBeKbO1eGFXwIqKifvDUj42SWnqezefOPB437FBLNCJZbijERDLeai 4kQAOgZUN34DAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 03:16:56 -0000 --_000_11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96afchtcomtw_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGk6DQpUaGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSBjb21tZW50cyBhYm91dCBjdXJyZW50IGlwdjRhc3MgaW1w bGVtZW50YXRpb24gaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA0LjQuMi4gKFN1cHBvcnQgaW4gQ2VsbHVsYXIgYW5k IEJyb2FkYmFuZCBOZXR3b3JrcykgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5n Og0KDQpJbiBicm9hZGJhbmQgbmV0d29ya3MsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIGRlcGxveW1lbnRz IG9mIDQ2NFhMQVQsIE1BUC1FIGFuZCBNQVAtVC4gbHc0bzYgYW5kIERTLUxpdGUgaGF2ZSBt b3JlIGRlcGxveW1lbnRzLCB3aXRoIERTLUxpdGUgIGJlaW5nIHRoZSBtb3N0IGNvbW1vbiwg YnV0IGx3NG82IHRha2luZyBvdmVyIGluIHRoZSBsYXN0IHllYXJzLg0KDQotLS0tLS0NCkkg aGF2ZSBkb25lIHNvbWUgcmVzZWFyY2ggYWJvdXQgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRp b24gb2YgdGhlc2UgbWVjaGFuaXNtcywgYnV0IGNhbiBub3QgZmluZCBhbnkgYnJvYWRiYW5k IG5ldHdvcmsgd2l0aCA0NjRYTEFUIHNlcnZpY2UuDQpEb2VzIGFueW9uZSBrbm93IGFueSBi cm9hZGJhbmQgc2VydmljZSBwcm92aWRlciAoZml4ZWQgbm90IG1vYmlsZSBzZXJ2aWNlKSB3 aXRoIDQ2NFhMQVQ/IEkgYW0gdmVyeSBjdXJpb3VzIGFib3V0IHRoaXMuDQoNClRoYW5rcw0K WWFubi1KdSBDaHUNCkNodW5nSHdhIFRlbGVjb20uIENvLg0KDQpQbGVhc2UgYmUgYWR2aXNl ZCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZW1haWwgbWVzc2FnZSAoaW5jbHVkaW5nIGFueSBhdHRhY2htZW50cykg Y29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgbGVnYWxseSBw cml2aWxlZ2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50LCBwbGVh c2UgZGVzdHJveSB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGFsbCBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBmcm9tIHlvdXIg c3lzdGVtIGFuZCBkbyBub3QgZnVydGhlciBjb2xsZWN0LCBwcm9jZXNzLCBvciB1c2UgdGhl bS4gQ2h1bmdod2EgVGVsZWNvbSBhbmQgYWxsIGl0cyBzdWJzaWRpYXJpZXMgYW5kIGFzc29j aWF0ZWQgY29tcGFuaWVzIHNoYWxsIG5vdCBiZSBsaWFibGUgZm9yIHRoZSBpbXByb3BlciBv ciBpbmNvbXBsZXRlIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY29udGFpbmVk IGluIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgbm9yIGZvciBhbnkgZGVsYXkgaW4gaXRzIHJlY2VpcHQgb3IgZGFt YWdlIHRvIHlvdXIgc3lzdGVtLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQs IHBsZWFzZSBwcm90ZWN0IHRoZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kL29yIHBlcnNvbmFsIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHdpdGggZHVlIGNhcmUuIEFueSB1bmF1 dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlLCBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIG9yIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIG1lc3Nh Z2UgaW4gd2hvbGUgb3IgaW4gcGFydCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLiAgQWxzbywg cGxlYXNlIHNlbGYtaW5zcGVjdCBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBhbmQgaHlwZXJsaW5rcyBjb250YWlu ZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBlbWFpbCB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHNlY3VyaXR5IGFu ZCB0byBwcm90ZWN0IHBlcnNvbmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLg0K --_000_11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96afchtcomtw_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi:

There are some comments about cu= rrent ipv4ass implementation in Section 4.4.2. (Support in Cellular and Broa= dband Networks) in this document as the following:

 

In broadband networks, there are= some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more d= eployments, with DS-Lite  being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over= in the last years.

 

------

I have done some research about= the current implementation of these mechanisms, but can not find any broadb= and network with 464XLAT service.

Does anyone know any broadband s= ervice provider (fixed not mobile service) with 464XLAT? I am very curious a= bout this.

 

Thanks

Yann-Ju Chu

ChungHwa Telecom. Co.=



本信件可能= ;包含中華電信股份有= 8480;公司機密資訊,非指ऩ= 0;之收件者,請勿蒐集、&= #34389;理或利用本信件內ê= 81;,並請銷毀此信件. 如為指定收件者,應確= 3526;保護郵件中本公司之= ;營業機密及個人資料,&#= 19981;得任意傳佈或揭露,È= 06;應自行確認本郵件之&= #38468;檔與超連結之安全ö= 15;,以共同善盡資訊安全= 與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) co= ntains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are no= t the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments fr= om your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Te= lecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable= for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in= this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If yo= u are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or persona= l information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, d= isclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly pr= ohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in= this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal infor= mation. --_000_11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96afchtcomtw_-- From nobody Tue May 5 23:56:49 2020 Return-Path: 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 F16B73A074D for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 23:56:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=consulintel.es 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 QEiClg_89ONY for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 23:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFCB3A074E for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 23:56:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1588748201; x=1589353001; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version: Content-type; bh=iaXATtsEQHstVUeGa80q31TfKPbcRmk5yxjOGM3bZ2M=; b=v3D2MvR2bdIIxGterYA8Eocx4bH4mUgIu8p8JgA0TG7JL/pS5+YnAKg9Cqk41i AZjS1MMyFDF20IvBOLCwnweSe51wUHiIjtOV2sINOn1c3gL8G3/VNeZM+Wl5PV6E IfALVSLqh0ZmFZaDhMzyHYw5FAGrIbCt0KYHLFdrQeAnY= X-MDAV-Result: clean X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 06 May 2020 08:56:41 +0200 X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 06 May 2020 08:56:39 +0200 Received: from [10.10.10.130] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000150740.msg for ; Wed, 06 May 2020 08:56:39 +0200 X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:6d38:897c:6b55:9c27 X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.130] X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 08:56:39 +0200 X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Return-Path: prvs=13954460bf=jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300 Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 08:56:39 +0200 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Message-ID: <66FDACC7-D641-4F79-B7FB-3DAB96EEF920@consulintel.es> Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3671600199_500030822" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 06:56:47 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3671600199_500030822 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi Yann-Ju, =20 I=E2=80=99ve worked in several 464XLAT deployment projects for broadband, a= round few thousand users most of them. Right now, one for 25 million subscr= ibers (including DSL, GPON and cellular). However, I can=E2=80=99t make pub= lic yet more details. =20 =20 Regards, Jordi @jordipalet =20 =20 =20 El 6/5/20 5:17, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" escribi=C3=B3: =20 Hi:=20 There are some comments about current ipv4ass implementation in Section 4.4= .2. (Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks) in this document as the fo= llowing: =20 In broadband networks, there are some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP= -T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite being the most c= ommon, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years. =20 ------ I have done some research about the current implementation of these mechani= sms, but can not find any broadband network with 464XLAT service. Does anyone know any broadband service provider (fixed not mobile service) = with 464XLAT? I am very curious about this. =20 Thanks Yann-Ju Chu ChungHwa Telecom. Co. =E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6=E5=8F=AF=E8=83=BD=E5=8C=85=E5=90=AB=E4=B8=AD=E8= =8F=AF=E9=9B=BB=E4=BF=A1=E8=82=A1=E4=BB=BD=E6=9C=89=E9=99=90=E5=85=AC=E5=8F= =B8=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A,=E9=9D=9E=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E4=B9= =8B=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,=E8=AB=8B=E5=8B=BF=E8=92=90=E9=9B=86=E3=80= =81=E8=99=95=E7=90=86=E6=88=96=E5=88=A9=E7=94=A8=E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6= =E5=85=A7=E5=AE=B9,=E4=B8=A6=E8=AB=8B=E9=8A=B7=E6=AF=80=E6=AD=A4=E4=BF=A1= =E4=BB=B6. =E5=A6=82=E7=82=BA=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,= =E6=87=89=E7=A2=BA=E5=AF=A6=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B8=AD=E6= =9C=AC=E5=85=AC=E5=8F=B8=E4=B9=8B=E7=87=9F=E6=A5=AD=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E5=8F= =8A=E5=80=8B=E4=BA=BA=E8=B3=87=E6=96=99,=E4=B8=8D=E5=BE=97=E4=BB=BB=E6=84= =8F=E5=82=B3=E4=BD=88=E6=88=96=E6=8F=AD=E9=9C=B2,=E4=B8=A6=E6=87=89=E8=87= =AA=E8=A1=8C=E7=A2=BA=E8=AA=8D=E6=9C=AC=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B9=8B=E9=99=84= =E6=AA=94=E8=88=87=E8=B6=85=E9=80=A3=E7=B5=90=E4=B9=8B=E5=AE=89=E5=85=A8=E6= =80=A7,=E4=BB=A5=E5=85=B1=E5=90=8C=E5=96=84=E7=9B=A1=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A=E5= =AE=89=E5=85=A8=E8=88=87=E5=80=8B=E8=B3=87=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E8=B2=AC=E4=BB= =BB.=20 Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) conta= ins confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not = the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments fro= m your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Te= lecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable= for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained i= n this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If = you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or pers= onal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized us= e, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strict= ly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contain= ed in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal= information. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing= list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops=20 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it. --B_3671600199_500030822 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Yann-Ju,

 <= /span>

I=E2=80=99ve worked in several 464XLAT deployment projects for = broadband, around few thousand users most of them. Right now, one for 25 mi= llion subscribers (including DSL, GPON and cellular). However, I can=E2=80= =99t make public yet more details.

 

 <= /o:p>

Regards,

Jordi

= @jordipalet

 

 

&= nbsp;

El 6/5/20 5:17, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de yjchui@cht.com.tw> escribi=C3=B3:

 

Hi: <= o:p>

There are some comments about current ipv4ass implementation in Se= ction 4.4.2. (Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks) in this document = as the following:

 

In broadband network= s, there are some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T. lw4o6 and DS-Lit= e have more deployments, with DS-Lite  being the most common, but lw4o= 6 taking over in the last years.

 

-----= -

I have done some research about the current implementation= of these mechanisms, but can not find any broadband network with 464XLAT s= ervice.

Does anyone know any broadband service provider (fix= ed not mobile service) with 464XLAT? I am very curious about this.

 

Thanks

Yann-Ju Chu

ChungHwa Telecom. Co.



= =E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6=E5=8F=AF=E8=83=BD=E5=8C=85=E5=90=AB=E4=B8= =AD=E8=8F=AF=E9=9B=BB=E4=BF=A1=E8=82=A1=E4=BB=BD=E6=9C=89=E9=99=90=E5=85=AC= =E5=8F=B8=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A,=E8=AB=8B=E5=8B=BF=E8=92= =90=E9=9B=86=E3=80=81=E8=99=95=E7=90=86=E6=88=96=E5=88=A9=E7=94=A8=E6=9C=AC= =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6=E5=85=A7=E5=AE=B9,=E4=B8=A6=E8=AB=8B= =E9=8A=B7=E6=AF=80=E6=AD=A4=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6. =E5=A6=82=E7=82=BA=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E6=94=B6= =E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,,=E4=B8=8D=E5=BE=97=E4=BB=BB=E6=84=8F=E5=82=B3=E4= =BD=88=E6=88=96=E6=8F=AD=E9=9C=B2,=E4=B8=A6=E6=87=89=E8=87=AA=E8=A1=8C=E7=A2=BA=E8=AA=8D=E6= =9C=AC=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B9=8B=E9=99=84=E6=AA=94=E8=88=87=E8=B6=85=E9=80= =A3=E7=B5=90=E4=B9=8B=E5=AE=89=E5=85=A8=E6=80=A7,=E4=BB=A5=E5=85=B1=E5=90=8C=E5=96=84=E7= =9B=A1=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A=E5=AE=89=E5=85=A8=E8=88=87=E5=80=8B=E8=B3=87=E4=BF= =9D=E8=AD=B7=E8=B2=AC=E4=BB=BB.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachment= s) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you = are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachm= ents from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chu= nghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not b= e liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information con= tained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your sys= tem. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and= /or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unautho= rized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part i= s strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks= contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect = personal information. _________= ______________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


*= *********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

--B_3671600199_500030822-- From nobody Wed May 6 00:02:42 2020 Return-Path: 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 AADC43A079D for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:02:39 -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=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cht.com.tw 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 I9MFj1Zms3Rk for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan19.cht.com.tw (scan19.cht.com.tw [202.39.168.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD2C3A0798 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:02:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=cht.com.tw; s=bill; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@cht.com.tw; t=1588748554; x=1591340554; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=meDq6Kl0kIgymuEYJfy4LEyu8swKMMHrpge4Rl2FX7g=; b=qTSZ48prztSVUNHpfmSAwo//WUODUT9UlmldZ4YrsXRrRtbJaiXMP1Pa3GxVvifl vEN545ZkltuWE6usxHmQhSf/Hn5yl4GeJsIJYvEYFzLSd9uN4K7l3ORYRnbNIJj3 msJdiweuHVskUboAAOfS9dHyCLNkAK9Yo6sCITKz1mk=; X-AuditID: 0aa0074a-7a3ff70000006d3d-9b-5eb2610aa5b3 Received: from scanrelay9.cht.com.tw ( [10.160.7.84]) by scan19.cht.com.tw (CHT Outgoing ESMTP Mail Server) with SMTP id FD.A7.27965.A0162BE5; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:02:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from email.cht.com.tw (unknown [10.174.192.6]) by scanrelay9.cht.com.tw (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 96EAA300000D0; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:02:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw (10.174.192.5) by EXMSN6.app.corp.cht.com.tw (10.174.192.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1779.2; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:02:33 +0800 Received: from EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw ([fe80::f101:bf2c:15c:c595]) by EXMSN5.app.corp.cht.com.tw ([fe80::f101:bf2c:15c:c595%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Wed, 6 May 2020 15:02:33 +0800 From: =?utf-8?B?5pyx5b2l5aaC?= To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ , "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 Thread-Index: AQHWI3PNNqXN1YumNUa23KoKbwk2kqiaoQCg Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 07:02:33 +0000 Message-ID: <93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5@cht.com.tw> References: <66FDACC7-D641-4F79-B7FB-3DAB96EEF920@consulintel.es> In-Reply-To: <66FDACC7-D641-4F79-B7FB-3DAB96EEF920@consulintel.es> Accept-Language: zh-HK, zh-TW, en-US Content-Language: zh-TW X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.144.169.153] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-12.5.0.2039-8.5.1020-25338.007 x-tm-as-result: No-9.687000-8.000000-10 x-tmase-matchedrid: Xng75ui6jXnUL3YCMmnG4u9VsdrlGzy3Q6/DFZugyt27/NQTVI1I+cxF Qxp3PhHymoRv4vCWtWO3WBVXyEWl0u84LVBXtoHOWcC0gYMYIWj54F/2i/DwjSPS9JdK3W4/bgY 8Qwl4o84kV+WXvBbB8A9sSsR8rFpP+rU9PV9YsWImEURBmKrZlJkShYcLpGH9lnl3JcyTSxJL/h r/YMmS/yzOrBzbkIiQDebCA+2uaihrFqz2BjTeA4oQo5xl9nbEqV3VmuIFNEuY2z+3/5e0HM0gc v38gUFhkLae+Z8yyg3C65AFPvjJ/KaLrahJxGiOL4+sB3yBscmZsb567cewrTrW2rRfTfGrS4s1 XGkEG1rmaxj3gZnVdAhSUlO4pBFNYo+VGqNyO93xXRm/a2c1PrPksiHb4g58utz7tidPO1Yyfzk x/2CaXZfkHFNE2DEXBX2wbgXkYfO29wQgZg1dfy/f4nXyNd1bUkCyfz2KH3hKDy5+nmfdPnkLgQ WWHyRRm/6LCob+tf02DghEu+JOFGhV4uU8NZ6BOdvw7Rg3RDl+S5m2/8VLmkhcmj54ab4UxAUzm kWCNdt3My4ASGdIwlLYCiQ92zVtiJCanE+Bl/CC1AbVcEPiWwsNJUsu9gifiTL9/Pkr8bk5vwmV OmG2NLzlaStFsCNPQx9kigGaIquo9xYAgbl4N4JRwf0Tg/s0O48pa7V+WVpgti2N7FIievDQAVF tZqLduT17ks8YaWA8ePjPapNemqXgCCul34T6rQcmzcV8ovw31Ce+4Yv8atz0oTaLCDAeCt5V56 tXaoqNkO51Oop/P73skl35komBOnmheXkHKUMvPdwR4OBdR30tCKdnhB581B0Hk1Q1KyJRRTT73 HhAr7VQu1GNZ+silxhPCV6M7c0Gle4I0w5r9pOlydZ/j410IDz5sX2q7XPbRaeq7d3qCnkgtPB/ ui4plExlQIQeRG0= x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No x-tmase-result: 10--9.687000-8.000000 x-tmase-version: SMEX-12.5.0.2039-8.5.1020-25338.007 x-tm-snts-smtp: 9D612A30C5DB34DA9B5C12530833E2318AD13B8038F825B8EFA56D2C19161BD72000:8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5chtcomtw_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrKKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCtYA9RJcrcVOcwfxeLYsrEyotTh/by+zA 5HFi2RVWjyVLfjIFMEUp2qSk5mSWpRbp29kkVRYkFhfrJqcpJObk2CqVFJWmKunbJShmvD+i XPBxDWPFowW32RsYF69g7GLk4JAQMJF4PiWmi5GLQ0hgG6PElYNv2SGcjYwSGw/NYoNwvjBK tGx/A5U5zCix/vVc1i5GTg42ASOJu7N/sIHYIgLZEmcer2MDGSss4Cdx7a4ViCkiEChx9WMM RIWRxNHGRhYQm0VAReLh201MIDavgKXEq2PzwGwhAUeJ+///sIPYnAJOEh9mXQfbxAhUv+zs arBeZgFxiXMXW8FqJAQEJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8jxXCVpK49vYvVI2FxOvlH6Hi6hIvd/9iBHlF QqCdQ2L9raWMEAkFiXNbz7BB2PIS+19OgRqqKvHv/DYmCNtE4uSeE1CDwiQ6V85jgzgoQWLf wUdQzwhKnJz5hGUCo+wsJLfOQlI2C0nZLGAQMQtoSqzfpQ9RoigxpfshVLmGROucuezI4gsY 2VcxChYnJ+YZWuolZ5ToJefn6pWUb2KEJBWvHYy/p7/XO8TIxMF4iFGCg1lJhJfnx8Y4Id6U xMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4xVwAiYyCwlmpwPTGt5JfGGxpbGJpYm5kbmZqYGVBFWEucVmb4qTkgg PbEkNTs1tSC1CGY5EwenVAOTob/00vBHRo+3r2laZ/nI4Yeq79ElL3lyVh5JrC6bfY3TeVaC AINq1uVk2ztzr3zZZWD4NoDLQHBZrAFPRvWS4Lr5lbO/nZvqIum+gEEh9kbGWu2fR5wW96rL Tc2eEn/59cVZTi6JD+0v8nPorS64xr69+cyN1f++b6990HNrbZh/54JdFk6fpJZuDNul9uxP QXiParCcsMAPpoN+9pb/feblzX9wUNHgu17tpIr9u0V9eFPOxDxUkpy7Y1bjkhPTVObG6tyq 02ozqdbueP/LWuyovdX/PVPjGGLOa37gmcZkVZNoKFZ1RzYhQ8sxdvu6rEqhGw+eeC6/pt04 yZX10mbZz3LfQt4/u7fX21RRiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAlXsfp/gDAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 07:02:40 -0000 --_000_93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5chtcomtw_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgSm9yZGk6DQpPbmUgYmlnIHByb2JsZW0gZm9yIG1lIGlzIHRoYXQ6IHRoZXJlIHNlZW1zIG5v IENQRSBzdXBwb3J0aW5nIDQ2NFhBTFQsIGVpdGhlciAoIGV4Y2VwdCBvcGVuIHNvdXJjZSB2ZXJz aW9uIOKApi4pDQpEbyB5b3Uga25vdyBhbnkgQ1BFIOKAnHByb2R1Y3TigJ0gd2l0aCA0NjRYTEFU IGJ1aWx0LWluPw0KDQpGcm9tOiB2Nm9wcyA8djZvcHMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4gT24gQmVo YWxmIE9mIEpPUkRJIFBBTEVUIE1BUlRJTkVaDQpTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIE1heSA2LCAyMDIw IDI6NTcgUE0NClRvOiB2Nm9wc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogW+WklumDqOmDteS7tl0gUmU6 IFt2Nm9wc10gUXVlc3Rpb25zIGFib3V0IGRyYWZ0LWxtaHAtdjZvcHMtdHJhbnNpdGlvbi1jb21w YXJpc29uLTA0DQoNCkhpIFlhbm4tSnUsDQoNCknigJl2ZSB3b3JrZWQgaW4gc2V2ZXJhbCA0NjRY TEFUIGRlcGxveW1lbnQgcHJvamVjdHMgZm9yIGJyb2FkYmFuZCwgYXJvdW5kIGZldyB0aG91c2Fu ZCB1c2VycyBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZW0uIFJpZ2h0IG5vdywgb25lIGZvciAyNSBtaWxsaW9uIHN1YnNj cmliZXJzIChpbmNsdWRpbmcgRFNMLCBHUE9OIGFuZCBjZWxsdWxhcikuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgY2Fu 4oCZdCBtYWtlIHB1YmxpYyB5ZXQgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzLg0KDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpKb3JkaQ0K QGpvcmRpcGFsZXQNCg0KDQoNCkVsIDYvNS8yMCA1OjE3LCAidjZvcHMgZW4gbm9tYnJlIGRlIOac seW9peWmgiIgPHY2b3BzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOnY2b3BzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmc+IGVuIG5vbWJyZSBkZSB5amNodWlAY2h0LmNvbS50dzxtYWlsdG86eWpjaHVpQGNodC5j b20udHc+PiBlc2NyaWJpw7M6DQoNCkhpOg0KVGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgY29tbWVudHMgYWJvdXQg Y3VycmVudCBpcHY0YXNzIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNC40LjIuIChTdXBwb3J0 IGluIENlbGx1bGFyIGFuZCBCcm9hZGJhbmQgTmV0d29ya3MpIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXMg dGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoNCg0KSW4gYnJvYWRiYW5kIG5ldHdvcmtzLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSBk ZXBsb3ltZW50cyBvZiA0NjRYTEFULCBNQVAtRSBhbmQgTUFQLVQuIGx3NG82IGFuZCBEUy1MaXRl IGhhdmUgbW9yZSBkZXBsb3ltZW50cywgd2l0aCBEUy1MaXRlICBiZWluZyB0aGUgbW9zdCBjb21t b24sIGJ1dCBsdzRvNiB0YWtpbmcgb3ZlciBpbiB0aGUgbGFzdCB5ZWFycy4NCg0KLS0tLS0tDQpJ IGhhdmUgZG9uZSBzb21lIHJlc2VhcmNoIGFib3V0IHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9u IG9mIHRoZXNlIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMsIGJ1dCBjYW4gbm90IGZpbmQgYW55IGJyb2FkYmFuZCBuZXR3 b3JrIHdpdGggNDY0WExBVCBzZXJ2aWNlLg0KRG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyBhbnkgYnJvYWRiYW5k IHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgKGZpeGVkIG5vdCBtb2JpbGUgc2VydmljZSkgd2l0aCA0NjRYTEFU PyBJIGFtIHZlcnkgY3VyaW91cyBhYm91dCB0aGlzLg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCllhbm4tSnUgQ2h1DQpD aHVuZ0h3YSBUZWxlY29tLiBDby4NCg0KDQrmnKzkv6Hku7blj6/og73ljIXlkKvkuK3oj6/pm7vk v6HogqHku73mnInpmZDlhazlj7jmqZ/lr4bos4foqIos6Z2e5oyH5a6a5LmL5pS25Lu26ICFLOir i+WLv+iSkOmbhuOAgeiZleeQhuaIluWIqeeUqOacrOS/oeS7tuWFp+WuuSzkuKboq4vpirfmr4Dm raTkv6Hku7YuIOWmgueCuuaMh+WumuaUtuS7tuiAhSzmh4nnorrlr6bkv53orbfpg7Xku7bkuK3m nKzlhazlj7jkuYvnh5/mpa3mqZ/lr4blj4rlgIvkurros4fmlpks5LiN5b6X5Lu75oSP5YKz5L2I 5oiW5o+t6ZyyLOS4puaHieiHquihjOeiuuiqjeacrOmDteS7tuS5i+mZhOaqlOiIh+i2hemAo+e1 kOS5i+WuieWFqOaApyzku6XlhbHlkIzlloTnm6Hos4foqIrlronlhajoiIflgIvos4fkv53orbfo sqzku7suDQpQbGVhc2UgYmUgYWR2aXNlZCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZW1haWwgbWVzc2FnZSAoaW5jbHVk aW5nIGFueSBhdHRhY2htZW50cykgY29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFu ZCBtYXkgYmUgbGVnYWxseSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQg cmVjaXBpZW50LCBwbGVhc2UgZGVzdHJveSB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGFsbCBhdHRhY2htZW50 cyBmcm9tIHlvdXIgc3lzdGVtIGFuZCBkbyBub3QgZnVydGhlciBjb2xsZWN0LCBwcm9jZXNzLCBv ciB1c2UgdGhlbS4gQ2h1bmdod2EgVGVsZWNvbSBhbmQgYWxsIGl0cyBzdWJzaWRpYXJpZXMgYW5k IGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgY29tcGFuaWVzIHNoYWxsIG5vdCBiZSBsaWFibGUgZm9yIHRoZSBpbXByb3Bl ciBvciBpbmNvbXBsZXRlIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY29udGFpbmVk IGluIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgbm9yIGZvciBhbnkgZGVsYXkgaW4gaXRzIHJlY2VpcHQgb3IgZGFtYWdl IHRvIHlvdXIgc3lzdGVtLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQsIHBsZWFz ZSBwcm90ZWN0IHRoZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kL29yIHBlcnNvbmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNv bnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHdpdGggZHVlIGNhcmUuIEFueSB1bmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNl LCBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIG9yIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgaW4gd2hvbGUgb3Ig aW4gcGFydCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLiBBbHNvLCBwbGVhc2Ugc2VsZi1pbnNwZWN0 IGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGFuZCBoeXBlcmxpbmtzIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHRvIGVu c3VyZSB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gc2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIHRvIHByb3RlY3QgcGVyc29uYWwgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24uIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f IHY2b3BzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCB2Nm9wc0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86djZvcHNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+ IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vdjZvcHMNCg0KKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKg0KSVB2NCBpcyBvdmVyDQpBcmUg eW91IHJlYWR5IGZvciB0aGUgbmV3IEludGVybmV0ID8NCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhlaXB2NmNvbXBh bnkuY29tDQpUaGUgSVB2NiBDb21wYW55DQoNClRoaXMgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBtZXNzYWdlIGNvbnRh aW5zIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHdoaWNoIG1heSBiZSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIG9yIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4g VGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHRvIGJlIGZvciB0aGUgZXhjbHVzaXZlIHVzZSBv ZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbChzKSBuYW1lZCBhYm92ZSBhbmQgZnVydGhlciBub24tZXhwbGljaWx0 eSBhdXRob3JpemVkIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUsIGNvcHlpbmcsIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvciB1c2Ugb2Yg dGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9mIHRoaXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGV2ZW4gaWYgcGFydGlhbGx5LCBpbmNs dWRpbmcgYXR0YWNoZWQgZmlsZXMsIGlzIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIHdpbGwgYmUg Y29uc2lkZXJlZCBhIGNyaW1pbmFsIG9mZmVuc2UuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRl ZCByZWNpcGllbnQgYmUgYXdhcmUgdGhhdCBhbnkgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSwgY29weWluZywgZGlzdHJp YnV0aW9uIG9yIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgZXZlbiBp ZiBwYXJ0aWFsbHksIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhdHRhY2hlZCBmaWxlcywgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgcHJvaGli aXRlZCwgd2lsbCBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGEgY3JpbWluYWwgb2ZmZW5zZSwgc28geW91IG11c3Qg cmVwbHkgdG8gdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIHNlbmRlciB0byBpbmZvcm0gYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBjb21tdW5p Y2F0aW9uIGFuZCBkZWxldGUgaXQuDQo= --_000_93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5chtcomtw_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 5paw57Sw5piO6auUOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMiA1IDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiTVMgR290aGljIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgOSA3IDIgNSA4 IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9z ZS0xOjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiWXUg R290aGljIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDQgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0K QGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiXEDmlrDntLDmmI7pq5QiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIg MSA2IDEgMCAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiXEBNUyBHb3Ro aWMiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA5IDcgMiA1IDggMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IlxAWXUgR290aGljIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDQgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMDt9 DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2 Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250 LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCmE6bGlu aywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiMw NTYzQzE7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNv SHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOiM5NTRG NzI7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpwLm1zb25vcm1hbDAsIGxpLm1zb25v cm1hbDAsIGRpdi5tc29ub3JtYWwwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOm1zb25vcm1hbDsNCgltc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBjbTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiLmlrDntLDmmI7pq5QiLHNlcmlmO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21z by1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ow0KCWNvbG9yOndpbmRvd3RleHQ7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTkNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5 cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7DQoJ Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQt b25seTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjYx Mi4wcHQgNzkyLjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW46NzIuMHB0IDkwLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0O30NCmRp di5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lm IGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9 IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxv OnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIx IiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkg bGFuZz0iWkgtVFciIGxpbms9IiMwNTYzQzEiIHZsaW5rPSIjOTU0RjcyIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9 IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIg c3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkhpIEpvcmRpOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RCI+T25lIGJpZyBwcm9ibGVtIGZvciBtZSBpcyB0aGF0OiB0aGVyZSBzZWVtcyBubyBDUEUgc3Vw cG9ydGluZyA0NjRYQUxULCBlaXRoZXIgKCBleGNlcHQgb3BlbiBzb3VyY2UgdmVyc2lvbiDigKYu KTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9 IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+RG8geW91IGtub3cgYW55IENQRSDigJxwcm9k dWN04oCdIHdpdGggNDY0WExBVCBidWlsdC1pbj88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Qi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6 bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNFMUUxRTEgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwY20gMGNt IDBjbSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQiPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQiPiB2Nm9wcyAmbHQ7djZvcHMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyZn dDsNCjxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+Sk9SREkgUEFMRVQgTUFSVElORVo8YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50 OjwvYj4gV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXkgNiwgMjAyMCAyOjU3IFBNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiB2Nm9w c0BpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBbPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O+aWsOe0sOaYjumrlCZxdW90OyxzZXJpZiI+ 5aSW6YOo6YO15Lu2PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdCI+XSBSZTogW3Y2b3BzXSBRdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgZHJhZnQtbG1ocC12Nm9wcy10cmFu c2l0aW9uLWNvbXBhcmlzb24tMDQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0ibXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPkhpIFlhbm4tSnUsPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxl PSJtc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tZmFy ZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+SeKAmXZlIHdvcmtlZCBpbiBzZXZlcmFsIDQ2NFhMQVQgZGVw bG95bWVudCBwcm9qZWN0cyBmb3IgYnJvYWRiYW5kLCBhcm91bmQgZmV3IHRob3VzYW5kIHVzZXJz IG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlbS4gUmlnaHQgbm93LCBvbmUgZm9yIDI1IG1pbGxpb24gc3Vic2NyaWJlcnMg KGluY2x1ZGluZyBEU0wsIEdQT04gYW5kIGNlbGx1bGFyKS4NCiBIb3dldmVyLCBJIGNhbuKAmXQg bWFrZSBwdWJsaWMgeWV0IG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpi bGFjayI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxl PSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+UmVnYXJkcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPkpvcmRpPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrO21zby1m YXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj5Aam9yZGlwYWxldDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjazttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1V UyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVT Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi IHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNS40cHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVTIj5FbCA2LzUvMjAgNTox NywgJnF1b3Q7djZvcHMgZW4gbm9tYnJlIGRlDQo8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5pyxPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZh bWlseTomcXVvdDtZdSBHb3RoaWMmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+5b2lPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtNUyBHb3RoaWMmcXVvdDsiPuWmgjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFUyI+JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86djZvcHMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y ZyI+djZvcHMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4gZW4gbm9tYnJlIGRlDQo8YSBocmVmPSJtYWls dG86eWpjaHVpQGNodC5jb20udHciPnlqY2h1aUBjaHQuY29tLnR3PC9hPiZndDsgZXNjcmliacOz Ojwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1h cmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkhpOiA8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxl PSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNS40cHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5UaGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSBj b21tZW50cyBhYm91dCBjdXJyZW50IGlwdjRhc3MgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA0 LjQuMi4gKFN1cHBvcnQgaW4gQ2VsbHVsYXIgYW5kIEJyb2FkYmFuZCBOZXR3b3JrcykgaW4gdGhp cyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0 OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+ PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdp bi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkluIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBuZXR3b3Jrcywg dGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgZGVwbG95bWVudHMgb2YgNDY0WExBVCwgTUFQLUUgYW5kIE1BUC1ULiBs dzRvNiBhbmQgRFMtTGl0ZSBoYXZlIG1vcmUgZGVwbG95bWVudHMsIHdpdGggRFMtTGl0ZSAmbmJz cDtiZWluZyB0aGUgbW9zdCBjb21tb24sIGJ1dCBsdzRvNiB0YWtpbmcgb3ZlciBpbiB0aGUgbGFz dA0KIHllYXJzLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNw YW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPi0tLS0tLTwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRw dCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkkgaGF2ZSBkb25lIHNvbWUgcmVzZWFyY2ggYWJvdXQgdGhl IGN1cnJlbnQgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlc2UgbWVjaGFuaXNtcywgYnV0IGNhbiBub3Qg ZmluZCBhbnkgYnJvYWRiYW5kIG5ldHdvcmsgd2l0aCA0NjRYTEFUIHNlcnZpY2UuPC9zcGFuPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs IiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzUuNHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+RG9lcyBhbnlv bmUga25vdyBhbnkgYnJvYWRiYW5kIHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgKGZpeGVkIG5vdCBtb2JpbGUg c2VydmljZSkgd2l0aCA0NjRYTEFUPyBJIGFtIHZlcnkgY3VyaW91cyBhYm91dCB0aGlzLjwvc3Bh bj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPiZuYnNw Ozwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi PlRoYW5rczwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM1LjRwdCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiPllhbm4tSnUgQ2h1PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzUuNHB0Ij48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+Q2h1bmdId2EgVGVsZWNvbS4gQ28uPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9 IkVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0i bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzUuNHB0Ij48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MS4wcHQiPjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7TVMgR290aGljJnF1b3Q7Ij7mnKzkv6Hku7blj6/og73l jIXlkKvkuK3oj6/pm7vkv6HogqHku73mnInpmZDlhazlj7jmqZ/lr4bos4foqIo8L3NwYW4+PC9i PjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdCI+LDwvc3Bhbj48L2I+ PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7TVMgR290 aGljJnF1b3Q7Ij7pnZ7mjIflrprkuYvmlLbku7bogIU8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9 IkVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdCI+LDwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7TVMgR290aGljJnF1b3Q7Ij7oq4vl i7/okpDpm4bjgIHomZXnkIbmiJbliKnnlKjmnKzkv6Hku7Y8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1l1IEdvdGhpYyZxdW90Oyxz YW5zLXNlcmlmIj7lhac8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5a65PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPiw8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90 OyI+5Lim6KuL6Yq35q+A5q2k5L+h5Lu2PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPi4NCjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5aaC54K65oyH5a6a5pS25Lu26ICFPC9zcGFu PjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPiw8L3NwYW4+ PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01T IEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5oeJ56K65a+m5L+d6K236YO15Lu25Lit5pys5YWs5Y+45LmL54ef5qWt 5qmf5a+G5Y+K5YCL5Lq66LOH5paZPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPiw8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6 MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5LiN5b6X5Lu75oSP5YKz 5L2I5oiW5o+t6ZyyPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQiPiw8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+5Lim5oeJ6Ieq6KGM56K66KqN5pys6YO1 5Lu25LmL6ZmE5qqU6IiH6LaF6YCj57WQ5LmL5a6J5YWo5oCnPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48Yj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPiw8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O01TIEdvdGhpYyZxdW90OyI+ 5Lul5YWx5ZCM5ZaE55uh6LOH6KiK5a6J5YWo6IiH5YCL6LOH5L+d6K236LKs5Lu7PC9zcGFuPjwv Yj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPi4NCjxicj4NClBs ZWFzZSBiZSBhZHZpc2VkIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBtZXNzYWdlIChpbmNsdWRpbmcgYW55IGF0 dGFjaG1lbnRzKSBjb250YWlucyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYW5kIG1heSBiZSBs ZWdhbGx5IHByaXZpbGVnZWQuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQs IHBsZWFzZSBkZXN0cm95IHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgYWxsIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGZyb20geW91 ciBzeXN0ZW0gYW5kIGRvIG5vdCBmdXJ0aGVyDQogY29sbGVjdCwgcHJvY2Vzcywgb3IgdXNlIHRo ZW0uIENodW5naHdhIFRlbGVjb20gYW5kIGFsbCBpdHMgc3Vic2lkaWFyaWVzIGFuZCBhc3NvY2lh dGVkIGNvbXBhbmllcyBzaGFsbCBub3QgYmUgbGlhYmxlIGZvciB0aGUgaW1wcm9wZXIgb3IgaW5j b21wbGV0ZSB0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlz IGVtYWlsIG5vciBmb3IgYW55IGRlbGF5IGluIGl0cyByZWNlaXB0IG9yIGRhbWFnZSB0byB5b3Vy DQogc3lzdGVtLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBwcm90 ZWN0IHRoZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kL29yIHBlcnNvbmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5l ZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHdpdGggZHVlIGNhcmUuIEFueSB1bmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlLCBkaXNj bG9zdXJlIG9yIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgaW4gd2hvbGUgb3IgaW4gcGFy dCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLiBBbHNvLA0KIHBsZWFzZSBzZWxmLWluc3BlY3QgYXR0 YWNobWVudHMgYW5kIGh5cGVybGlua3MgY29udGFpbmVkIGluIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgdG8gZW5zdXJl IHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBzZWN1cml0eSBhbmQgdG8gcHJvdGVjdCBwZXJzb25hbCBpbmZvcm1h dGlvbi48L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdCI+ IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fIHY2b3BzIG1h aWxpbmcNCiBsaXN0IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzp2Nm9wc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+djZvcHNAaWV0Zi5v cmc8L2E+IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vdjZv cHMiPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby92Nm9wczwvYT4gPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O+aW sOe0sOaYjumrlCZxdW90OyxzZXJpZiI+PGJyPg0KKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKjxicj4NCklQdjQgaXMgb3Zlcjxicj4NCkFyZSB5b3UgcmVhZHkg Zm9yIHRoZSBuZXcgSW50ZXJuZXQgPzxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhlaXB2NmNv bXBhbnkuY29tIj5odHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoZWlwdjZjb21wYW55LmNvbTwvYT48YnI+DQpUaGUgSVB2 NiBDb21wYW55PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KVGhpcyBlbGVjdHJvbmljIG1lc3NhZ2UgY29udGFpbnMgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24gd2hpY2ggbWF5IGJlIHByaXZpbGVnZWQgb3IgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLiBUaGUgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24gaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gYmUgZm9yIHRoZSBleGNsdXNpdmUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBp bmRpdmlkdWFsKHMpIG5hbWVkIGFib3ZlIGFuZCBmdXJ0aGVyIG5vbi1leHBsaWNpbHR5IGF1dGhv cml6ZWQgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSwgY29weWluZywgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIG9yIHVzZSBvZg0KIHRoZSBj b250ZW50cyBvZiB0aGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCBldmVuIGlmIHBhcnRpYWxseSwgaW5jbHVkaW5n IGF0dGFjaGVkIGZpbGVzLCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkIGFuZCB3aWxsIGJlIGNvbnNp ZGVyZWQgYSBjcmltaW5hbCBvZmZlbnNlLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVj aXBpZW50IGJlIGF3YXJlIHRoYXQgYW55IGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUsIGNvcHlpbmcsIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlv biBvciB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzDQogb2YgdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgZXZlbiBpZiBw YXJ0aWFsbHksIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhdHRhY2hlZCBmaWxlcywgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgcHJvaGliaXRl ZCwgd2lsbCBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGEgY3JpbWluYWwgb2ZmZW5zZSwgc28geW91IG11c3QgcmVw bHkgdG8gdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIHNlbmRlciB0byBpbmZvcm0gYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBjb21tdW5pY2F0 aW9uIGFuZCBkZWxldGUgaXQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+ DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5chtcomtw_-- From nobody Wed May 6 00:36:28 2020 Return-Path: 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 041533A041E for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=consulintel.es 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 kNiUhltoeH9c for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CC53A041A for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:36:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1588750577; x=1589355377; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type; bh=KMfCBLjPQrSaElc+Ea6MLhdYCz+g7jXgKg nmrRTP8Hg=; b=P2iT9rpUhP0p4PlrSIEaVOz/bK/oTKA7x4Ts0Ep70rfLqfJ1Xc CN9NXpgsyDZ7MWekuperkgB/BHqt1F47ZPsHo7sP7tvZ9MmtOyhzZV0aHTq+UFd8 t8INwer+SsI4vlc5QVOhCz+kZXRG0Nvcal9s0YX/RHGfiEdoJ8W7qyVqY= X-MDAV-Result: clean X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 06 May 2020 09:36:17 +0200 X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 06 May 2020 09:36:16 +0200 Received: from [10.10.10.130] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000150789.msg for ; Wed, 06 May 2020 09:36:14 +0200 X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:6d38:897c:6b55:9c27 X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.130] X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 09:36:14 +0200 X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Return-Path: prvs=13954460bf=jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300 Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 09:36:11 +0200 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 References: <66FDACC7-D641-4F79-B7FB-3DAB96EEF920@consulintel.es> <93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5@cht.com.tw> In-Reply-To: <93c0023ce7444731a951f8615c492ad5@cht.com.tw> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3671602571_361695065" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 07:36:24 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3671602571_361695065 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Yes, but this is the same with all the other IPv6-only and IPv4aaS mechanis= ms, that=E2=80=99s why we worked in RFC8585. In general, many vendors (up t= o now), only provide this in certain models or firmware versions for specif= ic customers. It is not a matter of technical difficulties; it is more a qu= estion of commercial/marketing decisions. =20 I=E2=80=99m working with several vendors that provide CLAT in CPEs. Up to n= ow I was mainly using OpenWRT, but since the last few months, there are som= e products already in the market, and more and more vendors working on them= . =20 You can easily find for example Technicolor offering it in several models. = In this list was also a mention of Sagemcom. You also have the Askey produc= t that T-Mobile is using: https://www.t-mobile.com/isp/lte-wifi-gateway-digital-user-guide =20 Zyxel, D-Link and NEC indicated in a panel that I organized in your country= a couple of years ago for APNIC, that they can provide it as well: =20 https://blog.apnic.net/2017/11/09/ce-vendors-share-thoughts-ipv6-support/ =20 I can=E2=80=99t disclose the vendors and models that I=E2=80=99m using, but= some of them are in this list, so they may be able to contact you or indic= ate it publicly. =20 Regards, Jordi @jordipalet =20 =20 =20 El 6/5/20 9:03, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" escribi=C3=B3: =20 Hi Jordi: One big problem for me is that: there seems no CPE supporting 464XALT, eith= er ( except open source version =E2=80=A6.) Do you know any CPE =E2=80=9Cproduct=E2=80=9D with 464XLAT built-in? =20 From: v6ops On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:57 PM To: v6ops@ietf.org Subject: [=E5=A4=96=E9=83=A8=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6] Re: [v6ops] Questions about= draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 =20 Hi Yann-Ju, =20 I=E2=80=99ve worked in several 464XLAT deployment projects for broadband, a= round few thousand users most of them. Right now, one for 25 million subscr= ibers (including DSL, GPON and cellular). However, I can=E2=80=99t make pub= lic yet more details. =20 =20 Regards, Jordi @jordipalet =20 =20 =20 El 6/5/20 5:17, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" escribi=C3=B3: =20 Hi:=20 There are some comments about current ipv4ass implementation in Section 4.4= .2. (Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks) in this document as the fo= llowing: =20 In broadband networks, there are some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP= -T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite being the most c= ommon, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years. =20 ------ I have done some research about the current implementation of these mechani= sms, but can not find any broadband network with 464XLAT service. Does anyone know any broadband service provider (fixed not mobile service) = with 464XLAT? I am very curious about this. =20 Thanks Yann-Ju Chu ChungHwa Telecom. Co. =E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6=E5=8F=AF=E8=83=BD=E5=8C=85=E5=90=AB=E4=B8=AD=E8= =8F=AF=E9=9B=BB=E4=BF=A1=E8=82=A1=E4=BB=BD=E6=9C=89=E9=99=90=E5=85=AC=E5=8F= =B8=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A,=E9=9D=9E=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E4=B9= =8B=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,=E8=AB=8B=E5=8B=BF=E8=92=90=E9=9B=86=E3=80= =81=E8=99=95=E7=90=86=E6=88=96=E5=88=A9=E7=94=A8=E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6= =E5=85=A7=E5=AE=B9,=E4=B8=A6=E8=AB=8B=E9=8A=B7=E6=AF=80=E6=AD=A4=E4=BF=A1= =E4=BB=B6. =E5=A6=82=E7=82=BA=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,= =E6=87=89=E7=A2=BA=E5=AF=A6=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B8=AD=E6= =9C=AC=E5=85=AC=E5=8F=B8=E4=B9=8B=E7=87=9F=E6=A5=AD=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E5=8F= =8A=E5=80=8B=E4=BA=BA=E8=B3=87=E6=96=99,=E4=B8=8D=E5=BE=97=E4=BB=BB=E6=84= =8F=E5=82=B3=E4=BD=88=E6=88=96=E6=8F=AD=E9=9C=B2,=E4=B8=A6=E6=87=89=E8=87= =AA=E8=A1=8C=E7=A2=BA=E8=AA=8D=E6=9C=AC=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B9=8B=E9=99=84= =E6=AA=94=E8=88=87=E8=B6=85=E9=80=A3=E7=B5=90=E4=B9=8B=E5=AE=89=E5=85=A8=E6= =80=A7,=E4=BB=A5=E5=85=B1=E5=90=8C=E5=96=84=E7=9B=A1=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A=E5= =AE=89=E5=85=A8=E8=88=87=E5=80=8B=E8=B3=87=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E8=B2=AC=E4=BB= =BB.=20 Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) conta= ins confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not = the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments fro= m your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Te= lecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable= for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained i= n this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If = you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or pers= onal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized us= e, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strict= ly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contain= ed in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal= information. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing= list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops=20 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ie= tf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops=20 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it. --B_3671602571_361695065 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, but this is the same with all the other IPv6-onl= y and IPv4aaS mechanisms, that=E2=80=99s why we worked in RFC8585. In gener= al, many vendors (up to now), only provide this in certain models or firmwa= re versions for specific customers. It is not a matter of technical difficu= lties; it is more a question of commercial/marketing decisions.<= /span>

 

I=E2=80=99m working with several = vendors that provide CLAT in CPEs. Up to now I was mainly using OpenWRT, bu= t since the last few months, there are some products already in the market,= and more and more vendors working on them.

&= nbsp;

You can easily find for example Technicolor offerin= g it in several models. In this list was also a mention of Sagemcom. You al= so have the Askey product that T-Mobile is using:

https://www.t-mobile.com/isp/lte-wifi= -gateway-digital-user-guide

 

Zyxel, D-Lin= k and NEC indicated in a panel that I organized in your country a couple of= years ago for APNIC, that they can provide it as well:

 

https://blog.apnic.net/2017/11/09/ce-vendors-share-thoughts-ipv6-s= upport/=

 

I can=E2=80=99t disclose the ven= dors and models that I=E2=80=99m using, but some of them are in this list, = so they may be able to contact you or indicate it publicly.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 6/5/20 9:03, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de = yjchui@cht.com.tw> escribi=C3= =B3:

 

Hi Jordi:

One big problem for me is that: there seem= s no CPE supporting 464XALT, either ( except open source version =E2=80=A6.= )

Do you know any CPE =E2=80=9Cprodu= ct=E2=80=9D with 464XLAT built-in?

&= nbsp;

From: v6ops <v6ops-bounce= s@ietf.org> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wed= nesday, May 6, 2020 2:57 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject:= [=E5=A4=96=E9=83=A8=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6] Re: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-tra= nsition-comparison-04

 

Hi Yann-Ju,

 

I=E2=80=99ve worked in several 464XLAT deployment projects for broad= band, around few thousand users most of them. Right now, one for 25 million= subscribers (including DSL, GPON and cellular). However, I can=E2=80=99t m= ake public yet more details.

&nbs= p;

<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'color:black'> 

Regards,

= Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 6/5/20 5:17, "v6ops en nombre de =E6=9C=B1=E5=BD=A5=E5=A6=82" <= v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nom= bre de yjchui@cht.com.tw> escri= bi=C3=B3:

 

Hi:

There are some com= ments about current ipv4ass implementation in Section 4.4.2. (Support in Ce= llular and Broadband Networks) in this document as the following:

 

In broadband networks, there are some deployments of= 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS= -Lite  being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years.=

 

------

I have done so= me research about the current implementation of these mechanisms, but can n= ot find any broadband network with 464XLAT service.

Does any= one know any broadband service provider (fixed not mobile service) with 464= XLAT? I am very curious about this.

 =

Th= anks

Yann-Ju Chu

ChungHwa Telecom. Co.=



=E6=9C=AC=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6= =E5=8F=AF=E8=83=BD=E5=8C=85=E5=90=AB=E4=B8=AD=E8=8F=AF=E9=9B=BB=E4=BF=A1=E8= =82=A1=E4=BB=BD=E6=9C=89=E9=99=90=E5=85=AC=E5=8F=B8=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E8=B3= =87=E8=A8=8A,<= span lang=3DES-TRAD style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Gothic"'>=E9= =9D=9E=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E4=B9=8B=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>,=E8=AB=8B=E5=8B=BF=E8=92=90= =E9=9B=86=E3=80=81=E8=99=95=E7=90=86=E6=88=96=E5=88=A9=E7=94=A8=E6=9C=AC=E4= =BF=A1=E4=BB=B6=E5=85=A7=E5=AE=B9,=E4=B8=A6=E8=AB=8B=E9=8A= =B7=E6=AF=80=E6=AD=A4=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=B6. =E5=A6=82=E7=82=BA=E6=8C=87=E5=AE=9A=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E8=80=85,=E6=87=89=E7=A2=BA=E5= =AF=A6=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6=E4=B8=AD=E6=9C=AC=E5=85=AC=E5=8F= =B8=E4=B9=8B=E7=87=9F=E6=A5=AD=E6=A9=9F=E5=AF=86=E5=8F=8A=E5=80=8B=E4=BA=BA= =E8=B3=87=E6=96=99,,=E4=B8= =A6=E6=87=89=E8=87=AA=E8=A1=8C=E7=A2=BA=E8=AA=8D=E6=9C=AC=E9=83=B5=E4=BB=B6= =E4=B9=8B=E9=99=84=E6=AA=94=E8=88=87=E8=B6=85=E9=80=A3=E7=B5=90=E4=B9=8B=E5= =AE=89=E5=85=A8=E6=80=A7,=E4=BB=A5=E5=85=B1=E5=90=8C=E5=96=84=E7=9B=A1=E8=B3=87=E8=A8=8A=E5= =AE=89=E5=85=A8=E8=88=87=E5=80=8B=E8=B3=87=E4=BF=9D=E8=AD=B7=E8=B2=AC=E4=BB= =BB.
Please be advised t= hat this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential in= formation and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipi= ent, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and d= o not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its s= ubsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper o= r incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor fo= r any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intende= d recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information co= ntained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or di= stribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also= , please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to= ensure the information security and to protect personal information. ____________________________________= ___________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf= .org https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/v6ops


*******************= ***************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new In= ternet ?
http://www.theipv6com= pany.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains in= formation which may be privileged or confidential. The information is inten= ded to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and furthe= r non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the= contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files,= is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you a= re not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distri= bution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, inclu= ding attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal = offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this comm= unication and delete it.

_____________________= __________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


*************= *********************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

--B_3671602571_361695065-- From nobody Mon May 11 06:02:10 2020 Return-Path: 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 9C0343A0A99; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=IUiXdXIU; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=i3KoEFWS 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 emTyXZ1Q0W2c; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 755FB3A0A94; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:01:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6229; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589202079; x=1590411679; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=4AwzWIJ2FV0tMosZmHjRk7gLVrVliBCWgrdR7YRFmUQ=; b=IUiXdXIUDD41u2dOwaOnKe1hu6oI3ifcKU+yCcTL05PLXe0JaFsiKELE 5r8xyUBBatYVinPkVkofwsEuEb8n+1pCgVX5VEktiOaCI7rqHwbnSA6DG k91JjMextld80MImrxHNXkNOPIe3Du4MtE28/lAKJFvRvXa2zeUeGvmWX c=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ANm5kHxHXwwB9c5kShpZQT51GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e401QWbXIjH5bRDkeWF+6zjWGlV55GHvThCdZFXTB?= =?us-ascii?q?YKhI0QmBBoG8+KD0D3bZuIJyw3FchPThlpqne8N0UGGcviaRvVuHLhpTIXEw?= =?us-ascii?q?/0YAxyIOm9E4XOjsOxgua1/ZCbYwhBiDenJ71oKxDjpgTKvc5Qioxneas=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BuAAAoTLle/4wNJK1mHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBQIEzCAELAYEkL1EFb1gvLAqHYAOEWJw+hGOBLoEkA1QLAQEBDAEBIwo?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBhEQCgg4kNAkOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQUEbYVWAQuFdBYbEwEBNwERAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?AJgEEDg0agwWBfk0DLgEOowsCgTmIYXSBNIMBAQEFhSgYgg4DBoE4AYJigkm?= =?us-ascii?q?HGBqCAIERQ4QPgWMBAQOBZCtLgk+CLY5UiRyKb5AQCoJKhyZ1kCqCXIhnj3i?= =?us-ascii?q?Bf4RxiyyJWpNQAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFSOYFWcBWDJFAYDZBAg3KFFIVCdDcCBgg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMJfIx3AYEPAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,380,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="756568623" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 May 2020 13:01:18 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04BD1IWn013020 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 May 2020 13:01:18 GMT Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:01:18 -0500 Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:01:18 -0500 Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 11 May 2020 09:01:17 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XhgsHV5qb7KdcNXRCYBEZ9Jnb1OjtCnM9j6rI6EFoWMAhAKk4AkOq1onO+JUZHMjkZd1HLso5sPliz2TMfth3WhNG1B/p/i8pMzNOQcD9UWEVU5SA8Gly1jE1VV8YDp3vR7L+V45b5FEsdzciXqC5I9Dq3uYfaOWp2sEXC+NEK2XVl9CCzEwEJUUa4gdKb/U8W9sMggd85938uUWvHIZLO+pEZ8us5hiTincqffMWT1W6WV7gJqkrHhaAj7ghqVpGyTR0jEw0Kb5qTX5Bfy6bUJy6ztaToiGKc0ucBuh1FCMfvTQ/YtO7PLGZKaeWu+fl7WGKjpB3hOMtShdKoyjqg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=GuI/vkAD5CHsCKCQYZOZy+UARbZyZkaB/9emwRbqQSA=; b=LKOu32/iZjbE7WI7+t2P1FYgiyrFdZI3jh0YZ4aYbFFzi8MBy5GoU1aGk4PuR7e7wzaA6q93+9+i57W/jkCgbTVttl6pZQefhM8ESkvgfFBKeSn/vWEM5zu6GO4QHZlN2SBVRzsPXwDNDvCxMZ3LO6KhnzQN3nhXs9+9p3L8Ek1DI443SlQgs2L/XZ0fvAW3DlYSei5MiNQhExcJxcbUdteUuxeILeTHtwDqw2H5rmhbWmM+T+/5OydcAgyDfykx3irD0voVxJUpV+0TV4srvd6Rfcgb54e1MLiuE2QFsAjG8sXA4pyHS7hkPmyM/9FqPfCLOSo6Dg/HlG0lwdHi2Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=GuI/vkAD5CHsCKCQYZOZy+UARbZyZkaB/9emwRbqQSA=; b=i3KoEFWS7NCvoI+7fnykSwcxqI8NZQlRsqrGC1dA7U59iXLkFOF8Z4A0Si+9KixiBuInoFK4k4ZhIs4dO9dxZ7n3ML9QqFeJR4h9N+1UU2TPQ8paEIElRP0dx3rBZkJ3GwUIuzt2wk8/xeDicK/Qh/+CtwEHzJn6vTTezEtajdI= Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN7PR11MB2724.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:b3::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.34; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:01:16 +0000 Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.033; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:01:16 +0000 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" CC: IPv6 Operations Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Thread-Index: AdYnlBw72h8m3/s6QES4usbyMd1QVw== Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:01:16 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.86] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6c423d8b-1c22-4e5e-a0bf-08d7f5ab6466 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2724: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5797; x-forefront-prvs: 04004D94E2 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(33430700001)(316002)(966005)(66556008)(66446008)(6506007)(26005)(64756008)(52536014)(186003)(2906002)(4326008)(450100002)(71200400001)(33656002)(478600001)(66946007)(66476007)(5660300002)(4744005)(7696005)(76116006)(8936002)(86362001)(9686003)(8676002)(33440700001)(166002)(6916009)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: w/LfJw0ABhedcbPrHeR9ZxKE65KM2fLJJnDh2N68pnBkcrYCS2GH8THhf0f8gvIPpn08120U55B3cKw1LjcO6+H4a8/f10rvKyyikKzil5PgPKOEn6ruZqZlMAYbBnbEctR597bof1Uex5Jh2ULejW9PZyaZjAXiKoizmHtFcKC2VEYglS7SrlHq2O1IjRxeEgTmBQ9XjgTl2kJvgU4rvxVGmhxRU6IXiyeTI2ctDfsHcVMKa94//hljrv1V1yPwyOIr45TKYmClVtAt/aQP9cFIIB02rdsUphMmsq0uTdU9zT68xzaYmP24G521KWcLAFf+g5a2tRm34s5MLPs76DujFJaCrPRFZuSEZWn31Zb+zywpNNKw32JhgW8HjMHHympbc9Vy6sIbNLIlzqf+Q54qe8+4x9ktiN1Q4PPhr00c5GVpFWJKmnC/ht03GWi8f5/8w7nXCFpReFr9jsG62WvhHYoarkYBDb99BJeDvzU= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR11MB25478F66E43089F189F98ED4CFA10BN7PR11MB2547namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6c423d8b-1c22-4e5e-a0bf-08d7f5ab6466 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 May 2020 13:01:16.8394 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: agQze0Li6jwt9LEo8zPzENTV1KRcFK392OGrsoMEtzx18lctpb/azThHJyrgwHlI X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2724 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:01:29 -0000 --_000_BN7PR11MB25478F66E43089F189F98ED4CFA10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Pref= erred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Sta= ndards Track document. There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). Thank you! * Tomek & Bernie --_000_BN7PR11MB25478F66E43089F189F98ED4CFA10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello:

 

The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc= -v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC fo= r this document.

 

Please review this document and provide your comment= s and whether you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC).

 

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Standards = Track document.

 

There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as= of this writing).

 

Thank you!

 

  • Tomek & Bernie

 

--_000_BN7PR11MB25478F66E43089F189F98ED4CFA10BN7PR11MB2547namp_-- From nobody Mon May 11 06:44:58 2020 Return-Path: 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 C03043A0AE7; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=consulintel.es 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 dLYJ9JdSlFay; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19C33A0AE5; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:44:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1589204688; x=1589809488; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version: Content-type; bh=K8k02DwiKUbfs3r4uGEXe+rjwzC2I6/M76XEBmsihp0=; b=WZJ/pIwgrlgTrAdEzXsRyVignn98Xa5iDeemE0Kr5azMzUSqrIhyCSeYGOEBcG +aVPPfcxYYP0OXnsj2QXt63IEgBPaFHDwiq5Vt/EOxbnB1u0vVGZSzmGmk7N0G6G BSCcUU35yP38Lz6pP3ZIIZAFaR22CAwCHny5LU93CG03Q= X-MDAV-Result: clean X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Mon, 11 May 2020 15:44:48 +0200 X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Mon, 11 May 2020 15:44:48 +0200 Received: from [10.10.10.144] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000158087.msg; Mon, 11 May 2020 15:44:47 +0200 X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:6c28:d6c4:ddfa:2fc8 X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.144] X-MDArrival-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 15:44:47 +0200 X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Return-Path: prvs=1400785ce1=jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300 Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 15:44:43 +0200 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" CC: IPv6 Operations Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3672056683_64802211" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:44:56 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3672056683_64802211 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, =20 I just read the document and I support it moving on. =20 Regards, Jordi @jordipalet =20 =20 =20 El 11/5/20 15:02, "v6ops en nombre de Bernie Volz (volz)" escribi=C3=B3: =20 Hello: =20 The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Pref= erred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. =20 Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). =20 Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Sta= ndards Track document. =20 There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). =20 Thank you! =20 - Tomek & Bernie =20 _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ie= tf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops=20 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it. --B_3672056683_64802211 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

 

I just read the = document and I support it moving on.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 11/5/2= 0 15:02, "v6ops en nombre de Bernie Volz (volz)" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de volz=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ie= tf.org> escribi=C3=B3:

 

Hello:

 

The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-i= etf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week = WGLC for this document.

 

Please review this document and provide your comments and whether = you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 202= 0 (23:59 UTC).

 

= Please see ht= tps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Standards Tr= ack document.

 

T= here are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing).<= /o:p>

 

Thank you!

 

-    =       Tomek & Bernie

 <= /o:p>

________________= _______________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org https://w= ww.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


***************= *******************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or con= fidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the i= ndividual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, = copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if p= artially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be cons= idered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware t= hat any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this in= formation, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibi= ted, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the origin= al sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

--B_3672056683_64802211-- From nobody Mon May 11 07:20:43 2020 Return-Path: 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 A33993A0B93; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:18:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wpi.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 VnlMrcrE-Fl6; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12on2120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.237.120]) (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 E8C523A0B2F; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:16:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=lCC0VHDJLFs/G+mqgHx1ZtEEPBfX3l9eKGvMrkjlZjia+27O/nKEJ6hucJXlhyUiu3ArXUuGwr0PJ60JhMcbJiuN4JqrzfJQUxROFo8MMcIaDI2xIB5PRfA6uWeMQc6EYbwOVtPXIrSW8vwKkbjJzLJJZ7208LbPCwbfNalbcSVRU2cwys5O3S0+zc9fjNL1cMrIz8gZ9pYjyUM3prLbXM1nva0KZcYPPr6X1EpgW+rD7uDn5xtXzn26uf9H7EwMMxoNhftIrrbig4B34ociANzPSd8aKPNxuXRMWqvICJA7MJjm51AtgEZ8WvzTnApP3O0kXvS0QtVBirUURZozrg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LjVVGi7Rn3jcl7txi83LjIFBk6T4VtuU+mhSbnJr6jk=; b=NNzu03DgSwVzW96qoulSFQU/FT9IW2othP3LYzeXT+Fzt9GqAcNyuhjmT/7K/h5TFbsg+efKmg9y58pxRpMUAL7cTyncruMk+DtPwBSnVeRuDlwaKzggf2IoKMw6mmqy8M2ydyvl7jD3ANmZ0nCCpN2q+W+pVrslottrFUvJWeAqQzOI8+wxV4T27KQy3D9T6RrZbs/mY1ELvq3HMNGKMecZlw8kjriKMK8hnQGKvYNdYLDOEsVRpSPR4BqoCgt63KN0Mb7e/X9lA58CG7d273xwnCAtul4FNOnMedrgG9FvAKoPmQbhDGIiTXmuthtUgKH/4JA9FZKQr8tI5bCz1Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wpi.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=wpi.edu; dkim=pass header.d=wpi.edu; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wpi.edu; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LjVVGi7Rn3jcl7txi83LjIFBk6T4VtuU+mhSbnJr6jk=; b=KHf4CmN0D2Nr5kkLx8W4ICOdLb7+0E4b9VB1A4ujVM95Iw/mAnjTEOQgjth0MaNQiYvGvbLjxCaPdTcl/3DdaO6sxXuSjxWvGn5i4d1AKRq4xd1RAiy0qV7ifRfFYb187uuE94OCBkwnhNXzUixVEh9LzeoMppwJbNkt4ygFHxY= Authentication-Results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=WPI.EDU; Received: from SN6PR01MB4527.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:805:e3::27) by SN6PR01MB4030.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:805:a8::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2958.20; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:16:48 +0000 Received: from SN6PR01MB4527.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::98fd:b6ac:d404:a9a3]) by SN6PR01MB4527.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::98fd:b6ac:d404:a9a3%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.033; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:16:48 +0000 Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 10:16:46 -0400 From: Chuck Anderson To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , IPv6 Operations Message-ID: <20200511141646.yvhrw6ooosiilma3@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Mail-Followup-To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , IPv6 Operations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: BL0PR0102CA0047.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:25::24) To SN6PR01MB4527.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:805:e3::27) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from angus.ind.wpi.edu (2607:f5c0:8040:8021:21e:4fff:feb3:7d64) by BL0PR0102CA0047.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:25::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.26 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:16:48 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [2607:f5c0:8040:8021:21e:4fff:feb3:7d64] X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 9b73d3f3-74df-4036-4663-08d7f5b5f152 X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: SN6PR01MB4030: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:6790; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04004D94E2 X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:SN6PR01MB4527.prod.exchangelabs.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(39850400004)(33430700001)(16526019)(8936002)(52116002)(7696005)(478600001)(966005)(450100002)(66946007)(66476007)(8676002)(66556008)(86362001)(2906002)(5660300002)(1076003)(186003)(55016002)(33440700001)(4744005)(786003)(110136005)(75432002)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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 X-OriginatorOrg: wpi.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9b73d3f3-74df-4036-4663-08d7f5b5f152 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2020 14:16:48.4370 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 589c76f5-ca15-41f9-884b-55ec15a0672a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: xyazej8o/RcRKfzspbqR6w2At/MsRyY45OU6nCLUOPalWLfM+zWOal0DR9fOW6gG X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR01MB4030 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:18:53 -0000 I support moving this document forward. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > Hello: > > The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. > > Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). > > Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only This is a Standards Track document. > > There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). > > Thank you! > > > * Tomek & Bernie From nobody Mon May 11 08:52:49 2020 Return-Path: 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 3FCFE3A0880 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=juniper.net header.b=CIwSKiQE; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=kVRHg7dT 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 wU2Jw2vNTFWv for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 4072D3A0823 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04BFlmrE021985 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:52:16 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=mFp9HDsFKuGDmZdBIBPsgtphaTEHtTObA+nlkymjDa0=; b=CIwSKiQE3XyOc4qVzJrFFBb9+5H3a3j6yA0YqTsi6YK+vLq644twd3GO/KLZwNf7zBOW I2pYeXrhPsq2FR1eU7nPVUfaKQ6oiTmnDuSyuRLek8RZJg2Prm9BJcM8uLB449QQ8JUH eaCOzsFmy64zAd++DHJuGT5DFCEZEobVpHm2yIpPvFhnQrAd03L1+wGbhPMpwYZ4POfY oCFg18X8eIYlDVqeZK2f0RSgBM2xX6ZASS6uXPpiKh+tuBBF1o1YKYJpOBFUDf+uTph5 /qIZJXq/YGcn41kKqkEZtPVL649uLTY1HNjibAriZzzJUv12d+qV3Rv3uMZdPxeBRzcM KQ== Received: from nam12-bn8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12lp2173.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.55.173]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30xkuahm4n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 08:52:16 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Q7kETD4Hc85wCkGgc14fx2rYOh1biFMqBdbMFGpMAGEcMw6aMvOU2z4FG3rdlEIlBhvg2FvYz/5SQr88ctvvCbJeai0Rh0SpUP6cZDhEND1mDnAy3tT3l4r3Lxd4wxIXY8sNsIuF1nBr0r4XNgTLys8J7dsz+zkJeS4euk4OMjwWUlr3R4TdXGqKRE5a9o6y5TSfy0XoP0VTp9GmU1cafh1o0HLy4X8AlAhVc2XRSw0h91x+pT4mzbxVQcQuDGT0cB7b9loL+2Do2i3wr/7m7p+N40NgQLITj27PrOZJWw1hze+UkqbkFdXeZ05MpP4PxvbfgXZ8W90ZjRr2HOJoqw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mFp9HDsFKuGDmZdBIBPsgtphaTEHtTObA+nlkymjDa0=; b=FyVnAwIFd6+zP2c/QaYfaB85cbWB2AZyZpL58Hw/9+xTIVbd3FA7zKcXd7KemKuRO3dMYTnouDyGdTz0rr16dZpYEF0RNsAYZovAxhVya8PM623y3/l8UKWt73v1n2xspFleDY9r/5KRHmTZ39OXKdtSNFKfCiFtsdcaugLf/fKF7sSEheO6hFnDCMWjH//iPX+ZRu0uLsc1E1GqjZnFfTU+cbny+snJcW2LwMvshcn1/EtiSCGJNHuVpHSnu+FHJTqVUQg34Wcs5rlY8hjTw8bTAnWKDXGMePWHlmeV6X6od/wleIKAAq7ykncQwz24349AM5EBXr+LMecYovumqg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mFp9HDsFKuGDmZdBIBPsgtphaTEHtTObA+nlkymjDa0=; b=kVRHg7dTieU3bL4J3MWTFUeuGEjgunykE/PACGH2nElMU8FFdY2Rexc+WolRtCDkbRvPa7IkRXXiL/0C6mRI10/FFy1abalTMtPaWrqLVIj1vBsLC4uJWvMArmIBsOpNUn8OswHrb8q93aSLE170tHMfC2WhtEf+i0alnW0CVag= Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB6714.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:131::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3000.15; Mon, 11 May 2020 15:52:14 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3000.016; Mon, 11 May 2020 15:52:14 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dhc-v6only Thread-Index: AQHWJ6pOfn819Rxe40mDDZCwaPEfd6ijCL6Q Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 15:52:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <202005111539.04BFd3xN081093@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <202005111539.04BFd3xN081093@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-11T15:52:06Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=d33b07fe-21ed-49c1-94ea-17f4ec68bc8e; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2 dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.4.0.45 dlp-reaction: no-action authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e5d5d638-35ec-41e3-61ac-08d7f5c34686 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB6714: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:2089; x-forefront-prvs: 04004D94E2 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(33430700001)(71200400001)(9686003)(316002)(7696005)(26005)(52536014)(558084003)(8936002)(33440700001)(6506007)(2906002)(186003)(55016002)(66946007)(5660300002)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(66476007)(478600001)(6916009)(33656002)(86362001)(76116006)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: h7BZcDki13ZivDF4WZC3+plWcLkQTUIOMN3w4sknNPmy53fzX4rWhfu8WsxMnyQsSWKDd53rqrng0VKCFzVPP6o6V6hdSGYdNHbaVhkopyTZrgmnSddr3pLhD9zZScIPEsCq8WJohu3ra+JqvhqBkq6EFOCfGUSQwWYLi2iIkA/wdtpBvxvo5GWvGJouiEXrea+4baw+H+Wep14AgQS0Wj5fbviVHAriLKxWqan0qI0hDh6tv7sSM2S7RuhZyWqdivdTQngpd+h9qMN9kOlGlibwqJ78HEJvaX3k8oo0BXXKJ6EbLgUNiQR3O+gcR+j91MbnXGRHIec8Lhoc26KXkKHzorCGffggExnzjDjUEGiUoiD/psHLmPSwFwecsoqB0JJNpPEEZzVWY5J5INQt/B8Sblp+mfp6Tz6rzrZpW4hjpAuRHRrV7zEB7RoMpMJQvPfHEFvyjWhOjd9Mhz6DkVgseNoVrJ75yTniKUgu1oVXhHXEMM8MpdLRd2p26W+B x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e5d5d638-35ec-41e3-61ac-08d7f5c34686 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 May 2020 15:52:14.5884 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5NLnWStFf5CYKHARUyEgleoQZ7wIqc8UcBtTkzDGzttfwOCBrXYIwtfaVJL4LMUtKN15i0DZtO6lW7jKXbkNbA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB6714 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-11_07:2020-05-11, 2020-05-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=484 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005110125 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dhc-v6only X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 15:52:25 -0000 Folks, =20 This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. =20 Please submit comments by May 25, 2020. Fred and Ron Juniper Business Use Only From nobody Mon May 11 18:54:47 2020 Return-Path: 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 5A39E3A0E58 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ylzxnexl1Lw1 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (jimtest.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::dead:beef:cafe]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430C33A0E54 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:3007:bc2d:7e1a:1c5] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:3007:bc2d:7e1a:1c5]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04C1sWmo111087 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:33 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04C1sWmo111087 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1589248476; bh=MhsFfgKl9KqlZi+0dk1KIeKJ5KlI/hmNeKU3x4nlqPU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=SxPPMkija9y5eCQei/CHTSxNSJWjwW5s6LfhWEaib8vVX7QGP+ZSRzrxZCCdo0QzZ v6miwNxoICmwo9EvQ3owAu78iN5ecqJ4WO9tt/r/r8iCitKENdV6virXv3dXX+Lms1 PYJi0Kj+YJHh75PJCmnEwNwXKtuX5oHtOi4pIKXs= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:32 -0700 Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6688F1E7-AD09-4B24-8962-91EF58BED4CE@delong.com> References: <202005111539.04BFd3xN081093@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> To: Ron Bonica X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dhc-v6only X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 01:54:46 -0000 I support moving this draft forward. Owen > On May 11, 2020, at 08:52 , Ron Bonica = wrote: >=20 > Folks, >=20 > This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. >=20 > Please submit comments by May 25, 2020. >=20 >=20 > Fred and Ron >=20 >=20 > Juniper Business Use Only >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From nobody Mon May 11 21:51:21 2020 Return-Path: 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 70B003A0BBC for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:51:19 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 qLcQEt1FhOlx for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 59C4F3A0BB6 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id k18so3415184ion.0 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:51:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fAUV4toWtxefrMmuhPUpcYIDP8E6yP4KbC3yV2Zpsms=; b=sO186fsTS0kfeFrWN+uO1GXtAoCb9EcNzh5bVW/vkJ29ycifGPlv+aOaE9YGUGwqVB A1oEVq25kwQElnyRTltqfKmPQS9UnmrT4yrL1oa568qp1cCsUYBugnhPoXb9FQLLAPj7 cQQ2A2F3Vo+5dolq+hNcb495DMga4b6INPXk8WdW1Bi5F4U508p+PjdzKfCv6kKABW8n o418/JCCngtJVg4+eyqXMXqZKflmcpnIupKr/kN9jgN/AIpCPuw6Hgt9I5e1Eom0ChH/ 3YgwpTATLD0Fbwt0QuZqB4iJmIkO6ZVaqBSY81PChBnzjTlarILFRjlkIYTsH4lDxm7g 09ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fAUV4toWtxefrMmuhPUpcYIDP8E6yP4KbC3yV2Zpsms=; b=bsuJsj6qKNBMgy3ttjTp1Sb7o3B75LtS7oO6SO9I+5y6G+5fSeT0IK3F1+Js9x+xif jfvzv8w1LLrUojsJaf9D0NFnq0j9UXe64C/w6j6rZYu/T0/H/NvFbyzzjNpSjnbjwcl8 6B5INmdNmL0q8gxc89DY27FXKaOBBbxKinxcCVXz/Q4K3Erwhab0to8d0RLZm0sW6WOm JBJsx5k1Sw2cjfcg4IRUmZL9VM5Ix1yWQyX5JllU14YkRouKOhTGH9hYqGDx+z0SR3mj v/s9P4LanrlY5/OaeIwI0/luboIUV5+d2nqvc83oD0J6XOMnpo4SUsQnI4vA8jbpkR// pVUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaRjiUfD1fDqrm4i8F3ImWVHlPNVHLQt2+DDYoF0v+P5Cf+gs7V vUtcavZqsZU4M3vz0wyqU0fWbND8qi+3lytLuhZnBF3ooSg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKTb0cUsc4lEYArQz6BRfItKBgyNBovED3gIdQeLeO4f8kBjuoE/jjyFHZGw6Gfrf6XedDJPc2nxINfVyLrz5s= X-Received: by 2002:a02:cf18:: with SMTP id q24mr15153866jar.50.1589259076580; Mon, 11 May 2020 21:51:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202005111539.04BFd3xN081093@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> <6688F1E7-AD09-4B24-8962-91EF58BED4CE@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <6688F1E7-AD09-4B24-8962-91EF58BED4CE@delong.com> From: Gyan Mishra Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 00:51:05 -0400 Message-ID: To: Owen DeLong Cc: Ron Bonica , "v6ops@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b738d805a56c3681" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dhc-v6only X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 04:51:20 -0000 --000000000000b738d805a56c3681 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I support moving the draft forward. Gyan On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:55 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > I support moving this draft forward. > > Owen > > > > On May 11, 2020, at 08:52 , Ron Bonica 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. > > > > Please submit comments by May 25, 2020. > > > > > > Fred and Ron > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- Gyan Mishra Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Silver Spring, MD 20904 Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com --000000000000b738d805a56c3681 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support moving the draft forward.

Gyan

On Mon, May 11, 2020= at 9:55 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.= com> wrote:
I support moving= this draft forward.

Owen


> On May 11, 2020, at 08:52 , Ron Bonica <rbonica=3D40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.o= rg> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.
>
> Please submit comments by May 25, 2020.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Fred and Ron
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
--
<= div dir=3D"ltr">

Gyan= =C2=A0 Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology= =C2=A0

Verizon=C2=A0

Silver Spring, MD 20= 904

Phone: 301 502-1347

<= font size=3D"1" color=3D"#000000" face=3D"georgia, serif">Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.= com



--000000000000b738d805a56c3681-- From nobody Sun May 17 07:57:04 2020 Return-Path: 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 142953A07D8; Sun, 17 May 2020 07:57:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 cJAU3jd5_WU5; Sun, 17 May 2020 07:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 EB9BE3A07D5; Sun, 17 May 2020 07:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 44E1F4883D78A71BD53E; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:56:55 +0100 (IST) Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:56:54 +0100 Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:56:54 +0100 Received: from DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.202]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sun, 17 May 2020 22:56:48 +0800 From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" CC: IPv6 Operations Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Thread-Index: AdYnlBw72h8m3/s6QES4usbyMd1QVwEv7Z6w Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 14:56:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE18F0F8AB@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.212.46] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE18F0F8ABDGGEML532MBXchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 14:57:02 -0000 --_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE18F0F8ABDGGEML532MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have reviewed the draft and I support moving it forward. It is important that this work simplifies the incremental deployment of IPv= 6-only networks and eases the IPv6 adoption. A few comments and clarification questions. 1. Page 4, "IPv6-only network", "...via NAT64 [RFC6147].", should be [= RFC6146], maybe a typo. 2. Page 4, Section 2, "... both IPv6-capable and IPv4-requiring device= s...". a) Is the "IPv6-capable devices" the "IPv6-only capable host" as defi= ned in the Terminology part? b) "IPv4-requiring devices" is not defined, and it is only mentioned = once in the draft. It would be better to be more clear about what it refers= to. 3. Page 6, "If a host is not capable of operating in an IPv6-only NAT6= 4 environment ...". Could you please be a bit explicit about what kind of h= ost it would be? Thank you! Best regards, Shuping From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Hello: The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Pref= erred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Sta= ndards Track document. There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). Thank you! - Tomek & Bernie --_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE18F0F8ABDGGEML532MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

I have reviewed the draft and I support moving it forward.

 

It is important that this work simplifies the incremental deploym= ent of IPv6-only networks and eases the IPv6 adoption.

 

A few comments and clarification questions.

1.      Page 4, “IPv6-only network”, “…vi= a NAT64 [RFC6147].”, should be [RFC6146], maybe a typo.

2.      Page 4, Section 2, “… both IPv6-capable and I= Pv4-requiring devices…”.

a)       Is the “IPv6-capable devices” the “IPv6= -only capable host” as defined in the Terminology part?

b)       “IPv4-requiring devices” is not defined, and = it is only mentioned once in the draft. It would be better to be more clear= about what it refers to.

3.      Page 6, “If a host is not capable of operating in a= n IPv6-only NAT64 environment …”. Could you please be a bit exp= licit about what kind of host it would be? Thank you!

 

Best regards,

Shuping

 

 

 

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/20= 20

 

Hello:

 

The authors have requested a WG= LC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This st= arts a 2 week WGLC for this document.

 

Please review this document and= provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward= or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC).

 

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Standards = Track document.

 

There are no IPR notices filed = against this work (as of this writing).

 

Thank you!

 

-=    &n= bsp;    Tomek & Bernie=

 

--_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE18F0F8ABDGGEML532MBXchi_-- From nobody Mon May 18 11:32:59 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071863A0D32; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: v6ops@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.130.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: v6ops@ietf.org Message-ID: <158982677296.32533.13586152299940115415@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:32:53 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 18:32:54 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering Events Authors : Fernando Gont Jan Zorz Richard Patterson Bernie Volz Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2020-05-18 Abstract: In scenarios where network configuration information becomes invalid without any explicit signaling of that condition (such as when a Customer Edge Router crashes and reboots without knowledge of the previously-employed configuration information), hosts on the local network will continue using stale network configuration information for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems. This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge Routers that help mitigate the aforementioned problem for typical residential and small office scenarios. This document updates RFC7084. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon May 18 11:36:11 2020 Return-Path: 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 0C9F53A0C5F; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 PS2QsqRDeEpx; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329AE3A0C35; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F3E92838B8; Mon, 18 May 2020 18:36:02 +0000 (UTC) References: <158982677313.32533.6229024065743311275@ietfa.amsl.com> To: IPv6 Operations Cc: "v6ops-chairs@ietf.org" From: Fernando Gont X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <158982677313.32533.6229024065743311275@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:35:50 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <158982677313.32533.6229024065743311275@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 18:36:09 -0000 Folks, We have posted a revision of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum. It is available at: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt Our apologies for the delay in posting this rev. We took the time to apply WGLC comments in the best possible way, and have tried to iterate with folks that had sent specific comments to try to double-check that the resulting text addressed their comments (thanks to all that got involved in multiple off-list review iterations!). This version is meant to address WGLC comments. Of the top of my head, the main changes are: * We have spelled out requirements as L-, following the numbering sequence from RFC7084. * The draft updates RFC7084. * We have incorporated text to deprecate stale prefixes for the DHCPv6 case (if DHCPv6 is provided on the LAN side). * We have incorporated the proposed text that I had posted on-list and that was reviewed on list. * We have incorporated the recommendation for setting prefix lifetimes and other options lifetimes (e.g. SLAAC RIOs) as discussed both on- list and off-list. * We have re-odered the text in each section, such that requirements are at the top of the section, and the rationale is always at the end. (in previous versions it was a bit intermixed, and made it harder to tell requirements from rationale). Your feedback is welcome, as always. Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:32:53 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Fernando Gont , Richard Patterson , Jan Zorz , Bernie Volz A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum Revision: 02 Title: Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering Events Document date: 2020-05-18 Group: v6ops Pages: 10 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-02 Abstract: In scenarios where network configuration information becomes invalid without any explicit signaling of that condition (such as when a Customer Edge Router crashes and reboots without knowledge of the previously-employed configuration information), hosts on the local network will continue using stale network configuration information for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems. This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge Routers that help mitigate the aforementioned problem for typical residential and small office scenarios. This document updates RFC7084. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Mon May 18 11:50:32 2020 Return-Path: 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 BB65D3A0D87 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 DbcasCTuQUsV for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (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 8F9FD3A0D85 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id f15so4604304plr.3 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=EU1kX9gBPv98uyp93A8JrNLJ3Uk3hoVI59EGMeUNWtI=; b=aylqPNXFCpFUusMZhcX+A+DKPqpYwb/v4doaT7OJUYur5HA46NWw3uyaf0T3sGlt6W GFDbOJYgdfn240fn6xivPglwyrBQR9QUIPgKtIiLoy3+yQIXZu/8AanHt8qcGAKnQ07G FGknYRBp/I0FoGNHpJk69rG9St3BirfBWJDkHXKLKf1o2sxgPwGOdOuCgRpaKCuBZ+gR Jo1UyuAn59QKzDqhEpNImGEpJNam8Hik5IvbK/ZpDlwbgapzszyyKuZGHDLZII77/Mmu TrT9/KWXdr7daOwA48uE7TE37FJJ3VemAWqpbxQOMFb/20/nzUtTN9hG+8jFp9y+WZ1W YSoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=EU1kX9gBPv98uyp93A8JrNLJ3Uk3hoVI59EGMeUNWtI=; b=kaNn0hj0yb8wMyoDeqA7n06xUB08CbJ9XnfJ8R6S0R2qatoOEL+IPs2ePB5wNNHpnI mzFeA2poKQxfGGtCQh5lMXFyZ54bo6N0T4/3ZDQo+iwEvTzwlxLVkOnZMulu9Ar8xaw5 gJ1ImlJ1SP+pIAm1DKUholGHc5Gq8KbAHEDUenLbDXMWzJdVK7P/86NnyLOH+BcPdBlZ XU7/nfekqgk9SicXWlTiKi2yj8qV+d7cbcSUa/vX3beUU6iyMB7tS6bhQRRyuj4zQykU 1Sq3GKyJt1eJFjrWa8nHCHNaVZeAZjPhc4i8U1y8omS7do1P9QVlHezLR3Dv7FgrTGhy rZTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PTC8XwrK4ncpc7PUjh6zhqA9hDXDthgY+IQrA8ZIXQebmQ/uO fAf5q8q6Jp9FjypxHiaThbXHs7+y X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqjX83y3O1E8SDiIkFz4ZA7n06zT3iWJlkHbD/2ce2/HixtVVb7G0B/O1ItiZ5mQleacvpxw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b484:: with SMTP id y4mr11472661plr.21.1589827829809; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5800:652::1042? ([2600:8802:5800:652::1042]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k12sm6374322pfg.177.2020.05.18.11.50.28 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Fred Baker Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DFD8A09C-56BA-4A53-84E6-9FF5D3313216"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Message-Id: <09C6CD9B-94F7-4D65-843F-D932CDD2F009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:27 -0700 To: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 18:50:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DFD8A09C-56BA-4A53-84E6-9FF5D3313216 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm following up on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum "Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering = Events", Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, 2020-05-18 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum "Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash- Renumbering Events", Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, 2020-05-05 These have been in discussion for a few months, and have been recently = updated. I have two questions: First, and this especially to those that commented in those last calls, = but of course not limited to them. Did the authors address all of the = issues raised? Are there other issues to raise? Second, we need a document shepherd as we send the documents to the = IESG. Would volunteers please send a note to v6ops-chairs@ietf.org? --Apple-Mail=_DFD8A09C-56BA-4A53-84E6-9FF5D3313216 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEctjlJjQmVrp9uMq7EhdRnd2GP+AFAl7C2PMACgkQEhdRnd2G P+AvGw/9FkYKbrHQ2n0qYxrgZv5zmHyR2ZG63v+rophQdVo1WwTS/tG7Ngt5ON6N TH8wBftCWVNhuTyQM1bT/FawDJxTyfud2h329ZX1w+AKkQp/BwQUg6zQoR+TAqzu B2cZ9+pMS84A/euSvAjpdVa+Sx1GfN9p2KsN80G6V9puL5UEei47dpw6jLBJ93MT cWU+JC1+AOu26XWbRoVuFXJ+YTRaZKYDqlVZ+movSXzsQsBW+vNV8uM7SOXqWUjp 4HR7C1sHhcbTezyyz+zPerfzq8/vLLy5ARHOi8HlR0H57fNXBKi/lgvn34YCqNvD h2j0/Xs5izBybA4tQdMgja7yA0pul8tgNDv7wFYYlSZnNa57ygH/hyct9UMT4aq6 ArUcB/mVU5nxo8LJacUw33qtRaeAnanKAhmYYdo5fYd63JhVqVBGq7d9RTGtaNd5 3ZdnuLacM9o3pYAJzkz4ugOZU0eHX5FE4b5NRr7ICS9aICBbx8eSH1aGoFFq0iiL eN2pqiI6NK0kHnxRjuQrO+TtRTRhV36tEwvMmNxJ7XCY4pTWGHHQEVHxxVRpv3r2 +IxthIRQ1dk9bY4onLQs+4ytaBiXvKGUEMn8QfdrcSI3p6ZExrQlo9wqeX3AtQbA 8NRugQ8s2Zm83O/h7vY2Hr0Jh+UtNMj3oZXP7SWJnrx9FCp9LRs= =iBA8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DFD8A09C-56BA-4A53-84E6-9FF5D3313216-- From nobody Mon May 18 12:00:22 2020 Return-Path: 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 144D73A1006 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 Y4GdblfhIPxN for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calypso.otenet.gr (calypso.otenet.gr [83.235.67.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35B83A0E18 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [94.69.70.153]) by calypso.otenet.gr (ESMTP) with ESMTPA id D775813803D for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:00:05 +0300 (EEST) To: "v6ops@ietf.org" References: <11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96af@cht.com.tw> From: Yannis Nikolopoulos Message-ID: <636e52b0-01fc-babf-b2a9-033f986d6f1a@otenet.gr> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 22:00:05 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <11ec16a31cae4c1ba9df4277bebb96af@cht.com.tw> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------69B6342F938DD13C086DECBA" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Questions about draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:00:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------69B6342F938DD13C086DECBA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, On 5/6/20 6:16 AM, 朱彥如 wrote: > > Hi: > > There are some comments about current ipv4ass implementation in > Section 4.4.2. (Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks) in this > document as the following: > > In broadband networks, there are some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E > and MAP-T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite >  being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years. > lw4o6 taking over? Can anyone support this statement? I'm aware of a few DSlite deployments but not a single lw4o6 production deployment regards, Yannis --------------69B6342F938DD13C086DECBA Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello,

On 5/6/20 6:16 AM, 朱彥如 wrote:

Hi:

There are some comments about current ipv4ass implementation in Section 4.4.2. (Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks) in this document as the following:

 

In broadband networks, there are some deployments of 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T. lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite  being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years.

 

lw4o6 taking over? Can anyone support this statement? I'm aware of a few DSlite deployments but not a single lw4o6 production deployment

regards,
Yannis
--------------69B6342F938DD13C086DECBA-- From nobody Mon May 18 12:04:28 2020 Return-Path: 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 11ACA3A0DCC; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 ZM_PiDzSlHd5; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calypso.otenet.gr (calypso.otenet.gr [83.235.67.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BC13A0DF1; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [94.69.70.153]) by calypso.otenet.gr (ESMTP) with ESMTPA id 8935313803D; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:02:52 +0300 (EEST) To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , IPv6 Operations References: <20200511141646.yvhrw6ooosiilma3@angus.ind.wpi.edu> From: Yannis Nikolopoulos Message-ID: <6f6f9963-02dd-9d7a-7c19-d5d57247f942@otenet.gr> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 22:02:52 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200511141646.yvhrw6ooosiilma3@angus.ind.wpi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:04:21 -0000 I too, support moving this document forward On 5/11/20 5:16 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > I support moving this document forward. > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> Hello: >> >> The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. >> >> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). >> >> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only This is a Standards Track document. >> >> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> * Tomek & Bernie > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From nobody Mon May 18 12:35:31 2020 Return-Path: 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 955E13A02BD for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 mb_hvhxwk-TW for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (jimtest.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::dead:beef:cafe]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ABA3A09CA for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:8119:8650:304b:1b73] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:8119:8650:304b:1b73]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04IJZCdH3941086 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:13 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04IJZCdH3941086 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1589830513; bh=Ix9rZkwNnm+S0NiVrtbQXYRqnb9YW4qoblgSt8aGiKk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=r80dqbgJJqVxbnhx4c5j2r1fo0rP2xVXGntT/djCc7GetWJfzgGcpkL7OVWu1GaZN bhVng/onCgCsRgqrAVbmthGJykePTUndcz4eHfdWej7+8YTtFMKE96z5IWMsVctGzZ QMhC7SfFxG2vl/ntv1zJnKoc1ELgjULo3BmDtonA= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: <09C6CD9B-94F7-4D65-843F-D932CDD2F009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:13 -0700 Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1FA233E1-42D7-41BE-8110-7E3B724B0799@delong.com> References: <09C6CD9B-94F7-4D65-843F-D932CDD2F009@gmail.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Mon, 18 May 2020 12:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:35:30 -0000 I believe the documents are in an appropriate state to move forward. All = concerns I expressed have been addressed. Owen > On May 18, 2020, at 11:50 , Fred Baker = wrote: >=20 > I'm following up on > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum > "Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering = Events", > Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, 2020-05-18 >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum > "Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash- > Renumbering Events", Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, > 2020-05-05 >=20 > These have been in discussion for a few months, and have been recently = updated. I have two questions: >=20 > First, and this especially to those that commented in those last = calls, but of course not limited to them. Did the authors address all of = the issues raised? Are there other issues to raise? >=20 > Second, we need a document shepherd as we send the documents to the = IESG. Would volunteers please send a note to v6ops-chairs@ietf.org? > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From nobody Mon May 18 14:48:39 2020 Return-Path: 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 C7E463A0E40 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:48:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.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 PwrGcZk3wXHl for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (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 550EE3A0E3D for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id f134so995033wmf.1 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:48:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CJoV5ZO8UlwGjVeKJO/4OHWqiY5Fh8xbR368dnlls3o=; b=FF682Nefj1vZeHT7EL8yPV/kyLBwbjgpb5vUipr8sJylg2jBsrccJaS0kP1BNV6ZCP 8HFy8eicI2qea8MuMBEQH+p5tGZJq4qJelPst1vvA5Nv8SL4wc6xqzboH9gQh8ffT1IZ 0jD3mfoVTIyHR7D4f4DGV3k+1SsVqqqz/h42E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CJoV5ZO8UlwGjVeKJO/4OHWqiY5Fh8xbR368dnlls3o=; b=jCOqhsm9jRm+51yBymlrbxOeoQCWDbY0aOg0IEtVSrLaryogE9e3QN0UDOeIj8Feln L9oRPabgRHBe2js3dNRgrqnOJIl26k7JvdIwkaG/HerIF0mp/w+IURGr3VlTBTxBHqrn V7u/psVmxfnj1RXmi+X2oNLfyHovOws/sFByGPwmlpmuzT2ZkbS455A6T9+BGoqLICws z6KjNbj1+8YnCZS9OgEeC+1/cycQjexP9vcw5vT4qHqA+zeefZ4V5Sngjw+3bj5CLytp EVhZlY79wVqqqcm42uRisHCGO3HNWW+Qru0kVCobKu2Wu8MTwRgHLnxZ9bUYI2AVqFd4 KfRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531RNVBiKx/AuaLhSaNAd2xVyj2DhxQqiFvFsW9VkY+OUsK0dj+W Jl7UiRLHhPTFAkTR8fs5AAxFJC1rZIV46yvNoAe56A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJ8tIJqqbaQVhBL8bXV+wFqh2p+I5NS4r0jHJW0LsDNb8jI6CPGiLd7dKlJFinmxZj2fl4KSQw7XLhADRCJJs= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:acc8:: with SMTP id v191mr1578470wme.154.1589838505702; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200511141646.yvhrw6ooosiilma3@angus.ind.wpi.edu> <6f6f9963-02dd-9d7a-7c19-d5d57247f942@otenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <6f6f9963-02dd-9d7a-7c19-d5d57247f942@otenet.gr> From: Timothy Winters Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:48:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Yannis Nikolopoulos Cc: IPv6 Operations , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062382605a5f31fea" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 21:48:31 -0000 --00000000000062382605a5f31fea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=E2=80=99ve read this document and support it it advancing. Tim On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:05 PM Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: > I too, support moving this document forward > > On 5/11/20 5:16 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > I support moving this document forward. > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > >> Hello: > >> > >> The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only > (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this > document. > >> > >> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you > support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC)= . > >> > >> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only This is a > Standards Track document. > >> > >> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> > >> * Tomek & Bernie > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > --00000000000062382605a5f31fea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=E2=80=99ve read this document and support it it ad= vancing.

Tim
=

O= n Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:05 PM Yannis Nikolopoulos <yanodd@otenet.gr> wrote:
= I too, support moving this document forward

On 5/11/20 5:16 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I support moving this document forward.
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> Hello:
>>
>> The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-= Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this documen= t.
>>
>> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether = you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UT= C).
>>
>> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/dra= ft-ietf-dhc-v6only This is a Standards Track document.
>>
>> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writi= ng).
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=C2=A0 =C2=A0Tomek & Bernie
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
--00000000000062382605a5f31fea-- From nobody Tue May 19 05:50:05 2020 Return-Path: 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 5B5C03A0789 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 G6BGcaVWWf7Y for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8B623A0793 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jb1gz-0000MZC; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:49:57 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 May 2020 11:50:27 -0700 ." <09C6CD9B-94F7-4D65-843F-D932CDD2F009@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:49:55 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 12:50:05 -0000 >I'm following up on >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum > "Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering = >Events", > Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, 2020-05-18 In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have space for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have provided a use case for that in the past. (It would be nice if Fernando could fix his mail server (or remove the IPv6 address on his MX. I have a mail to him that has been in my mail queue for quite a while now). From nobody Tue May 19 09:08:42 2020 Return-Path: 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 2902D3A0A73 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 J8eWmXgUKFK2 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F075E3A0A6C for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:ddb1:8740:ceee:11b0] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:ddb1:8740:ceee:11b0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E79C428380C; Tue, 19 May 2020 16:08:33 +0000 (UTC) To: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org References: From: Fernando Gont Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@tools.ietf.org, Fernando Gont Message-ID: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 12:35:09 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:08:41 -0000 On 19/5/20 09:49, Philip Homburg wrote: >> I'm following up on >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum >> "Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering = >> Events", >> Fernando Gont, Jan Zorz, Richard Patterson, 2020-05-18 > > In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have space > for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have provided > a use case for that in the past. These are requirements for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what the CPE is expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to me that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of "if you don't follow this, you are breaking things". A device that employs local addresses for more than the leased time may potentially employ addresses for longer than valid. Am I missing something? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Wed May 20 01:55:37 2020 Return-Path: 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 8E3153A3B88 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 01:55:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 LJT5nesIekVt for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 01:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8283A3B87 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jbKVd-0000L7C; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:55:29 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org Cc: Fernando Gont From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 May 2020 12:35:09 -0300 ." <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:55:25 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 08:55:36 -0000 >> In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have space >> for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have provided >> a use case for that in the past. > >These are requirements for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what the >CPE is expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to me >that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of "if you >don't follow this, you are breaking things". A device that employs >local addresses for more than the leased time may potentially employ >addresses for longer than valid. I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an incentive to use very short lease times. I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE). Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE. The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only a few hours at most and ask people to wait. We have to be careful, that we don't reserve the term CPE for 'device used by a customer who doesn't know any better'. Historically, we allow operators of routers to set all kinds of parameters even if they would shoot themselves in the foot doing that. So the CPE specs are useful set of specifications to connect a router to a DSL or cable connection. But that doesn't mean we should prevent to owner of the CPE from configuring the local network as that person sees fit. Now I think there is a workaround for the L-15 requirement. The CPE could allow the user to not advertise the prefix obtained through DHCPv6 PD and allow the user to statically configure a prefix to advertised. I think this workaround is more convoluted than allowing the user to directly override the lifetime parameters. But that seems to be what this wg wants. From nobody Wed May 20 03:28:26 2020 Return-Path: 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 292C63A07A8 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:24 -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=helix-net-nz.20150623.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 ZoPH4kzM86jZ for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 C121F3A0797 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id 17so2573543ilj.3 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zG9jXVoWW9uaSMP5+5YJi2WdTH5rdujK/vQSNrN6xJE=; b=GBt/uPng+NyPdiYjp2JrFYCQmGUWa3jdYFpoI5+/g5owADT4vwMYpg96EKkTieN4tO A9cJ2gA3rMIWvpCfr2uoynqPHNB/1x/vZcTSdvnkE1VqFJqOu1aRniXrTTqjCZQsgVfy bdHWLCbbzYi7IZ3h+bBJpFP3ZMvEKFL1jw0vj78xBUl9kxiQb+Q3eknKxC8uTvdYw9mN x8a3BaJ3r/q27c4wW9BT/61Ev1tEMpMFdLCVnPUpKgpSdtdHML2cYrcSMZrZWd793pEu SudVilq8YAA1MotYimNmW51jDDSknRa+Z8xVtyy93AQqTDn9CGt5J5fXo9xcl230O2gr oiag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zG9jXVoWW9uaSMP5+5YJi2WdTH5rdujK/vQSNrN6xJE=; b=rsBpkoiOc5vW1w+19XmmRPXZJGz/vdCZeeIl5cX1F/91SmR2uhEN+G9tPUwSZRMp3T IWcWkGqjjy9Ii2k9isdBpOHYfZuWfmgFsX5XilGpxP88mUijAvcM5CveZyxwIMEcJo+F 1ot3Zx5AvZGyvUaUIXx/OGKcK25c730b6Aj9OPu2XcZ37TVa8mIstyHo76zN8oBN79FP X/cHGmt4kguN+0Esnr8GigeLHjPaE2Q3dUgEhIDLbuRgMgNqdhRyTTpUufHcdRW3EXC2 unwiGbKcF094qO1irdZN5JQJPE/wWZS36zoHKmrni9RZFZjkXgnHFK+DxIAOpu+KxzXm vftw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532X+u/LNzdPwMdMG77ggunvc7zJ8m5TKuv9G/zciSwHpT2ywyan ecQFVZ+O6025hsJAJOxC6dzPIeM7ous= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVvoD+Wc8zwVgaMuWNjxK+q84QfIbrrEMwn9OK5zYdLgtTUDsZ+ghGAThgEoOXds89DnAS8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:138b:: with SMTP id d11mr2781020ilo.183.1589970500748; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-f179.google.com (mail-il1-f179.google.com. [209.85.166.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y12sm1165533ilk.16.2020.05.20.03.28.19 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-f179.google.com with SMTP id a14so2580070ilk.2 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a92:dc50:: with SMTP id x16mr3342076ilq.83.1589970499826; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:28:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Patterson Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:28:08 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Philip Homburg Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org list" , Fernando Gont Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d87d7e05a611da31" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:28:24 -0000 --000000000000d87d7e05a611da31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 09:56, Philip Homburg wrote: > > I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an > incentive to use very short lease times. > > I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a > customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the > lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE). > > Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed > prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by > the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE. > > The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only > a few hours at most and ask people to wait. > So this is indeed a concern for an Operator running IPoE services, but is a problem to be tackled on the BNG rather than the CPE router. One mitigation is as you suggest, the Operator uses short DHCP lease times so that the session times out gracefully within a reasonable time, but this is even more reason for L-15 to exist as a MUST, so the CPE doesn't overpromise the prefix duration on the LAN. There are also additional approaches depending on the BNG vendor, that either reactively clear subscriber sessions when they detect a duplicate/conflict, or more proactively check the aliveness of the CPE Router periodically with ARP/ND. --000000000000d87d7e05a611da31 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 09:56, Philip Homb= urg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phico= h.com> wrote:

I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an
incentive to use very short lease times.

I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a
customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the
lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE).

Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed
prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by
the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE.

The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only
a few hours at most and ask people to wait.

=
So this is indeed a concern for an Operator running IPoE services, but= is a problem to be tackled on the BNG rather than the CPE router.
One mitigation is as you suggest, the Operator uses short DHCP lease time= s so that the session times out gracefully within a reasonable time, but th= is is even more reason for L-15 to exist as a MUST,=C2=A0so the CPE doesn&#= 39;t overpromise the prefix duration on the LAN.=C2=A0 =C2=A0
There are also additional approaches depending on the BNG vendo= r, that either reactively clear subscriber sessions when they detect a dupl= icate/conflict, or more proactively check the aliveness of the CPE Router p= eriodically with ARP/ND.

--000000000000d87d7e05a611da31-- From nobody Wed May 20 07:17:20 2020 Return-Path: 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 967CD3A0A1C for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 c5RqugBjlqes for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 9106E3A0A13 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04KEHDXC046081 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 16:17:13 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8230E20E0D2 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 16:17:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AEE207523 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 16:17:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.11.240.67] ([10.11.240.67]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04KEHChk026587 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 16:17:13 +0200 References: <158997118646.14529.11719522758044154416@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" From: Alexandre Petrescu X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <158997118646.14529.11719522758044154416@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <1287853c-0850-4f4c-dbc0-9914620fae2b@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:17:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <158997118646.14529.11719522758044154416@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CF5303F8BD71C0A6F4E79C54" Content-Language: fr Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 14:17:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CF5303F8BD71C0A6F4E79C54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, v6opsers, We updated the draft draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir to its 5th version. The newly inserted text is brief, but it points to an improved kernel implementation, available on github https://github.com/dmytroshytyi/KD6-DHCPv6-PD-DANIRv2 This implementation executes a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation procedure in the kernel of a linux IoT router.  It is an essential procedure for a connection of a (potentially automated) automobile connected natively on IPv6 on a cellular network. Before I manage to find a linux ressource, in this day and age of confinement, I would like to ask whether a person could test that code in linux and tell, at least, whether the execution does not cause a segmentation fault. Alex, and Dmytro -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : New Version Notification for draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt Date : Wed, 20 May 2020 03:39:46 -0700 De : internet-drafts@ietf.org Pour : Alexandre Petrescu , Dmytro Shytyi , Alexandre Petrescu A new version of I-D, draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt has been successfully submitted by Dmytro Shytyi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir Revision: 05 Title: DHCPv6_PD, PDP and NDP Implementation in IoT Router (DANIR) Document date: 2020-05-20 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05 Abstract: This document provides a description of the implementation of Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 Prefix Delegation, Neighbour Discovery Protocol and of the use of the Packet Data Protocol in an Internet of Things Router. This Internet of Things Router is connected on a cellular network; it is a DHCPv6-PD Client and it requests a /56 pool of prefixes from the server; the DHCPv6-PD server is placed in the PGW and is a part of the cellular infrastructure. After the pool of prefixes is delegated, the Internet of Things Router derives sub-prefixes from the prefix pool; each one of these sub-prefixes is aimed at one ingress interface. After the Internet of Things Router finishes the network prefix assignment procedure, it advertises the network prefixes on the ingress links by using the Neighbour Discovery protocol. Finally, when Hosts receive the sub-prefixes via Router Adverticement messages, they configure the Global Unique Address with the Stateless Address Auto-configuration protocol. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --------------CF5303F8BD71C0A6F4E79C54 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi, v6opsers,

We updated the draft draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir to its 5th version.

The newly inserted text is brief, but it points to an improved kernel implementation, available on github

   https://github.com/dmytroshytyi/KD6-DHCPv6-PD-DANIRv2

This implementation executes a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation procedure in the kernel of a linux IoT router.  It is an essential procedure for a connection of a (potentially automated) automobile connected natively on IPv6 on a cellular network.

Before I manage to find a linux ressource, in this day and age of confinement, I would like to ask whether a person could test that code in linux and tell, at least, whether the execution does not cause a segmentation fault.

Alex, and Dmytro



-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : New Version Notification for draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt
Date : Wed, 20 May 2020 03:39:46 -0700
De : internet-drafts@ietf.org
Pour : Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>, Dmytro Shytyi <ietf.dmytro@shytyi.net>, Alexandre Petrescu <Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr>



A new version of I-D, draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dmytro Shytyi and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir
Revision: 05
Title: DHCPv6_PD, PDP and NDP Implementation in IoT Router (DANIR)
Document date: 2020-05-20
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 19
URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-05

Abstract:
This document provides a description of the implementation of Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol version 6 Prefix Delegation, Neighbour
Discovery Protocol and of the use of the Packet Data Protocol in an
Internet of Things Router. This Internet of Things Router is
connected on a cellular network; it is a DHCPv6-PD Client and it
requests a /56 pool of prefixes from the server; the DHCPv6-PD server
is placed in the PGW and is a part of the cellular infrastructure.
After the pool of prefixes is delegated, the Internet of Things
Router derives sub-prefixes from the prefix pool; each one of these
sub-prefixes is aimed at one ingress interface.

After the Internet of Things Router finishes the network prefix
assignment procedure, it advertises the network prefixes on the
ingress links by using the Neighbour Discovery protocol. Finally,
when Hosts receive the sub-prefixes via Router Adverticement
messages, they configure the Global Unique Address with the Stateless
Address Auto-configuration protocol.



Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--------------CF5303F8BD71C0A6F4E79C54-- From nobody Wed May 20 08:19:01 2020 Return-Path: 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 A23D33A0B18; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:18:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=shytyi.net 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 ZkqtY8QU7kJT; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sender11-of-o52.zoho.eu (sender11-of-o52.zoho.eu [31.186.226.238]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0CA3A0B0A; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:18:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1589987931; cv=none; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; b=VxCSMGdfu/scA5gVddrA6FMM+hMKyibFMLvdrH8iB3lQ5H+ZEDRNIidyFBvcEtGKX2NmoL6pIEf+8/3yMtkLQOuKY+ONZVYjuhD9olFoH6rBbZTG3g2XJf0Xt+GD35D580wuc+z6EvFtE7Wvnap2m7aGNdrXGs7rw/EMZjbgNyQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; t=1589987931; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=DsMz0sS/XnYiFRGZSqe6EuCNsJ6iTdu8tpkOx6BiqX8=; b=Xh+Oij0UG/UIBm2dfCcY/VqSZvwFKdFUJhegJcx9oRY9NT/NcNT3xe4CK0YlNd+nwz+TiiGxIyn+gZXrcdycB8znR9Ij4xRxSEkwQl2t/nHH4rVOGBYA77ZgGIS+lXMfbSrtyyTZPg3BD4HxFdRM3XNcl4B1aqiz2hGy2oySvxQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.eu; dkim=pass header.i=shytyi.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.dmytro@shytyi.net; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1589987931; s=hs; d=shytyi.net; i=ietf.dmytro@shytyi.net; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=DsMz0sS/XnYiFRGZSqe6EuCNsJ6iTdu8tpkOx6BiqX8=; b=TELzH1XTiRUb37gxWtSXEej+xqhBRNEOChUU7l0Zwhczf4CRcw0IcfVFYnRXj9KP K6CaWAt0zEMhngOGXXqXNhVebvSMtK2EzfeIokMSG0xO/OppKUaMYUewmTfzyClfv+c u5kkKbLFxhGeFRKfC4qpu3CTwsKxSF2Lsg0lFWl8= Received: from sender.zoho.eu (172.26.23.31 [172.26.23.31]) by mx.zoho.eu with SMTPS id 1589987929565354.4770282784; Wed, 20 May 2020 17:18:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.zoho.eu by mx.zoho.eu with SMTP id 1589987929454208.85190636421532; Wed, 20 May 2020 17:18:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 17:18:49 +0200 From: Dmytro Shytyi To: "Timothy Winters" Cc: "Yannis Nikolopoulos" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" , "IPv6 Operations" Message-Id: <17232aa6d6c.118c16efc365432.3970253476719208425@shytyi.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20200511141646.yvhrw6ooosiilma3@angus.ind.wpi.edu> <6f6f9963-02dd-9d7a-7c19-d5d57247f942@otenet.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1149047_1998705696.1589987929452" Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail X-ZohoMailClient: External Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:18:59 -0000 ------=_Part_1149047_1998705696.1589987929452 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I support the introdution of ipv6 only option in dhcp. ______________ Dmytro SHYTYI ---- On Mon, 18 May 2020 23:48:14 +0200 Timothy Winters wr= ote ---- I=E2=80=99ve read this document and support it it advancing. Tim On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:05 PM Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list=20 mailto:v6ops@ietf.org=20 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops=20 I too, support moving this document forward =20 On 5/11/20 5:16 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > I support moving this document forward. > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> Hello: >> >> The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-= Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. >> >> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you s= upport this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). >> >> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only This is a = Standards Track document. >> >> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). >> >> Thank you! >> >> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 *=C2=A0 =C2=A0Tomek & Bernie > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > mailto:v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops =20 _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg ------=_Part_1149047_1998705696.1589987929452 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
Hello,

I support the = introdution of ipv6 only option in dhcp.

______________
Dm= ytro SHYTYI


---- On Mon, 18 May 2020 23:48:14 +0200 Timothy Winters <tim@qacaf= e.com> wrote ----

I=E2=80=99ve read this document and sup= port it it advancing.

Tim

On Mon, May 18, 2020= at 3:05 PM Yannis Nikolopoulos <yanodd@otenet.gr> wrote:

_______________________________________________
= v6ops mailing list
I too, support moving this document forward

On 5/11/20 5:16 PM,= Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I support moving this document forward.
= >
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz)= wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> The authors have requ= ested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP= ). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document.
>>
>> P= lease review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppor= t this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC).
&g= t;>
>> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-= dhc-v6only This is a Standards Track document.
>>
>>= ; There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). >>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>&n= bsp;   *   Tomek & Bernie
> _____________________= __________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https= ://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________= ________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/dhcwg

<= /div>
------=_Part_1149047_1998705696.1589987929452-- From nobody Wed May 20 09:10:06 2020 Return-Path: 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 C52323A0B26 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 BHW-S7I5FU_o for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6253A0B2C for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 09:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jbRI7-0000LCC; Wed, 20 May 2020 18:09:59 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 11:28:08 +0100 ." Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 18:09:55 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:10:05 -0000 In your letter dated Wed, 20 May 2020 11:28:08 +0100 you wrote: >So this is indeed a concern for an Operator running IPoE services, but is a >problem to be tackled on the BNG rather than the CPE router. >One mitigation is as you suggest, the Operator uses short DHCP lease times >so that the session times out gracefully within a reasonable time, but this >is even more reason for L-15 to exist as a MUST, so the CPE doesn't >overpromise the prefix duration on the LAN. I have a hard time following this reasoning. We know that customers with static prefixes are impacted by this and end up with short leases on their prefixes. There is no point in limiting RA values for static prefixes. Of the other hand, for dynamic prefixes, which this draft tries to deal with, there is no problem with relatively long lease times. So this draft makes the situation worse for static prefixes to better deal with the unwanted situation of dynamic prefixes. To me that strikes me as completely the wrong way around. From nobody Wed May 20 13:55:28 2020 Return-Path: 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 D49E63A0AF7 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:27 -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=helix-net-nz.20150623.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 9xa6gykfRH0u for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 DCD173A0AF6 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id c20so4778133ilk.6 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+mo+hMiefA45GC3/K2yp8aw9jQ7iGFBJqSH3AulGFRI=; b=kHk9SAkyRcD5Y4Re2uP3zo/8XUkGVWBWEqf3rLTnOIdLHhSxaztCZ0RCWKMm9cV8ns bDD5AqROhso22od1Py+N6MCF/0tYHdSJxlzoJzn/zx2ucIU/UwUGfYI+MGUuw8yZvVMh TB0ahicelxF2PmtAp437tkw3tZZCIc/R5EnJTgr4uAWe61ARJKQrVt2qkEG8XlFERYID 8BXYfQGBnZ3vyXmY3U6UlgxuueQWxGllwDK4TiDejaRmeBU1cP/n4kevA8XspN0M4mXc G8ThZZnNCwYDOP2phsJLlsrUffl92Vf8SHx4QWVT1e/MsPiSCRDQBl/Af95gWPlDy3xM nRAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+mo+hMiefA45GC3/K2yp8aw9jQ7iGFBJqSH3AulGFRI=; b=C3yFxN39hW4oDII5aL6go+ZQ4M5EtY37h0b67GRHMKA4qWVp4YacDjfnPHwqAysvf4 MwLj1A7ZUKjYtm0c633xxcbhw4v/4upPCSAvEGIIFAqM1KI6NenMrREPId2j4gZciSJj 6iK3NnoeLVuc7MaHEuFB48ovT7d4d/UqN3brhHscyMmkDDIjmZ6lYmnCV/pl73pJCiLT 2O3vL7iZxU10g443i231QCFrSUdlnN3g6Fe/BTNoNgm+0UcYPinkDjwzUqTeJ4fykQ8M go6yJh8yM38PuIjowzlLn2oVWVgTyeTBFT0+HJq1TxUQEnF2pde9vipzfz2ULyh5V5nY lp9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hQFEIff22jxkgnDBCuXFTfb/2CQQk+ZynZzH6TU18rDDUh9yV s3yeXYIvZOPLbeoMwJK7ojo110Ap+LE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUkbZRUWzDFKCPI15inqoM/0A7RyZA7Him+DMDjHf7lom3N4GH042pYw8BhS14lUZfV/2wIQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:13e2:: with SMTP id w2mr5822067ilj.264.1590008124131; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f51.google.com (mail-io1-f51.google.com. [209.85.166.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q78sm1892548ilb.25.2020.05.20.13.55.22 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id d7so4923636ioq.5 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ab03:: with SMTP id u3mr5032482ioe.148.1590008122228; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Patterson Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 21:55:10 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Philip Homburg Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org list" , Richard Patterson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050c70e05a61a9d45" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 20:55:28 -0000 --00000000000050c70e05a61a9d45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:10, Philip Homburg wrote: > > I have a hard time following this reasoning. We know that customers with > static prefixes are impacted by this and end up with short leases on their > prefixes. There is no point in limiting RA values for static prefixes. > The DHCPv6 PD client doesn't know that the prefix is static, just that it has the rights to use that prefix for up to the Valid Lifetime. It's presumptuous and foolish of the host to over-promise the use of said prefix downstream. > > Of the other hand, for dynamic prefixes, which this draft tries to deal > with, there is no problem with relatively long lease times. > But there is, that's what we're trying to mitigate. > So this draft makes the situation worse for static prefixes to better > deal with the unwanted situation of dynamic prefixes. To me that strikes me > as completely the wrong way around. > You might have to expand on why you think shorter lifetimes are "worse". --00000000000050c70e05a61a9d45 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:10, Philip Homb= urg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phico= h.com> wrote:

I have a hard time following this reasoning. We know that customers with static prefixes are impacted by this and end up with short leases on their<= br> prefixes. There is no point in limiting RA values for static prefixes.
=

The DHCPv6 PD client doesn't know that= the prefix is static, just that it has the rights to use that prefix for u= p to the Valid Lifetime.
It's presumptuous and foolish of the= host to over-promise the use of said prefix downstream.
=C2=A0

Of the other hand, for dynamic prefixes, which this draft tries to deal
with, there is no problem with relatively long lease times.

But there is, that's what we're trying to miti= gate.
=C2=A0
So this draft makes the situation worse for static prefixes to better
deal with the unwanted situation of dynamic prefixes. To me that strikes me=
as completely the wrong way around.

You= might have to expand on why you think shorter lifetimes are "worse&qu= ot;.

=C2=A0
--00000000000050c70e05a61a9d45-- From nobody Wed May 20 19:11:14 2020 Return-Path: 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 3C89B3A0866 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:11:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 9VxCNb1QFLq6 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3800A3A0867 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:c935:b93f:29b2:80d5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:c935:b93f:29b2:80d5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 613F4281572; Thu, 21 May 2020 02:11:03 +0000 (UTC) To: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 23:10:57 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 02:11:10 -0000 Hello, Philip, On 20/5/20 05:55, Philip Homburg wrote: >>> In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have space >>> for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have provided >>> a use case for that in the past. >> >> These are requirements for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what the >> CPE is expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to me >> that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of "if you >> don't follow this, you are breaking things". A device that employs >> local addresses for more than the leased time may potentially employ >> addresses for longer than valid. > > I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an > incentive to use very short lease times. > > I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a > customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the > lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE). > > Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed > prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by > the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE. > > The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only > a few hours at most and ask people to wait. In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the lifetimes. > We have to be careful, that we don't reserve the term CPE for > 'device used by a customer who doesn't know any better'. > > Historically, we allow operators of routers to set all kinds of parameters > even if they would shoot themselves in the foot doing that. So the CPE > specs are useful set of specifications to connect a router to a DSL or > cable connection. But that doesn't mean we should prevent to owner of the > CPE from configuring the local network as that person sees fit. The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE Router does, by default, without human intervention. We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other things. So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your CE Router. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Wed May 20 19:17:41 2020 Return-Path: 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 A03C63A0890 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_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 vyvyTVWDvLm7 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C01E3A088E for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:4d31:891e:8e11:9b78] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:4d31:891e:8e11:9b78]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04L2HXcl075482 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:34 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04L2HXcl075482 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590027454; bh=g8glKxPqMgML4GeJdTi76W4elOcthwvqhGXrCitW9Wc=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=BGM++Q7hYfZ/opxPVDRy2u9XHkVGx9D2KXtWvGPKUkCkeE6KDCjn/i9f+la03Wr13 kn5z0lhZDWsLZXbSZWJgQ5ij0cYGcOSZhikKZGnnSoiNRI1CAoQFzEz9mLq2UkInIE 3D3vfeisT7zz0sCvp4kfmXT16E1+iXbE41fz7skg= From: Owen DeLong Message-Id: <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_87915B22-DD34-4A64-9410-0A379ADCF5C2" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> Cc: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org To: Fernando Gont References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 20 May 2020 19:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 02:17:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_87915B22-DD34-4A64-9410-0A379ADCF5C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On May 20, 2020, at 19:10 , Fernando Gont = wrote: >=20 > Hello, Philip, >=20 > On 20/5/20 05:55, Philip Homburg wrote: >>>> In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have = space >>>> for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have = provided >>>> a use case for that in the past. >>>=20 >>> These are requirements for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what = the >>> CPE is expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to = me >>> that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of "if = you >>> don't follow this, you are breaking things". A device that employs >>> local addresses for more than the leased time may potentially employ >>> addresses for longer than valid. >> I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an >> incentive to use very short lease times. >> I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a >> customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the >> lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE). >> Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed >> prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by >> the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE. >> The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only >> a few hours at most and ask people to wait. >=20 > In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't = seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the lifetimes. As silly as it seems to you and me, he wants the LAN to continue to = function while disconnected by misconfiguring his router. >> We have to be careful, that we don't reserve the term CPE for >> 'device used by a customer who doesn't know any better'. >> Historically, we allow operators of routers to set all kinds of = parameters >> even if they would shoot themselves in the foot doing that. So the = CPE >> specs are useful set of specifications to connect a router to a DSL = or >> cable connection. But that doesn't mean we should prevent to owner of = the >> CPE from configuring the local network as that person sees fit. >=20 > The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE = Router does, by default, without human intervention. >=20 > We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other = things. >=20 > So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not = arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your = CE Router. I suspect he=E2=80=99s interpreting it (and some vendors are not = unlikely to as well) to say that vendors should not allow this = misconfiguration. Perhaps if we add the words =E2=80=9Cby default=E2=80=9D or something = like that into the language to make it clear that this specifies only = the required default behavior fo the CE Router and does not preclude knobs allowing one to = misconfigure their device to obtain a desired result it would address = his singular concern without relaxing the requirement to the point of doing substantial = damage elsewhere. Owen --Apple-Mail=_87915B22-DD34-4A64-9410-0A379ADCF5C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On May 20, 2020, at 19:10 , Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

Hello, Philip,

On 20/5/20 05:55, Philip Homburg = wrote:
In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise = have space
for the operator of the router to override this = behavior. I have provided
a use case for that in the = past.

These are requirements = for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what the
CPE is = expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to me
that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of = "if you
don't follow this, you are breaking things". =  A device that employs
local addresses for more than = the leased time may potentially employ
addresses for = longer than valid.
I think the need to relax = L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an
incentive to = use very short lease times.
I don't know the details, but = what seems to happen is that when a
customer swaps one CPE = for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the
lease (i.e., = people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE).
Then when = the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed
prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in = use by
the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new = CPE.
The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in = the lease to only
a few hours at most and ask people to = wait.

In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? = I don't seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the = lifetimes.

As silly = as it seems to you and me, he wants the LAN to continue to function = while disconnected by misconfiguring his router.

We = have to be careful, that we don't reserve the term CPE for
'device used by a customer who doesn't know any better'.
Historically, we allow operators of routers to set all kinds = of parameters
even if they would shoot themselves in the = foot doing that. So the CPE
specs are useful set of = specifications to connect a router to a DSL or
cable = connection. But that doesn't mean we should prevent to owner of the
CPE from configuring the local network as that person sees = fit.

The recommendations in this document have to do with what the = CE Router does, by default, without human intervention.

We're not precluding CE Routers = to have other knobs to do other things.

So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- = L-15 is not arguing that you should or should not manually configure = stuff in your CE Router.

I suspect he=E2=80=99s interpreting it (and some = vendors are not unlikely to as well) to say that vendors should not = allow this misconfiguration.

Perhaps = if we add the words =E2=80=9Cby default=E2=80=9D or something like that = into the language to make it clear that this specifies only the required = default behavior
fo the CE Router and does not preclude knobs = allowing one to misconfigure their device to obtain a desired result it = would address his singular concern
without relaxing the = requirement to the point of doing substantial damage = elsewhere.

Owen

= --Apple-Mail=_87915B22-DD34-4A64-9410-0A379ADCF5C2-- From nobody Wed May 20 19:57:26 2020 Return-Path: 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 DB5AC3A09EF for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 GeDP7ciUU4aJ for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (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 10E7C3A09EC for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id q16so2215330plr.2 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bEAMoBT6GQOuDEG6FoT39kPdaabvkE7v7Y5bF+sW9Xw=; b=QwVBJvpgLXGZudQ1jgarkCda5r4OgHzjrSHCeZfnkTbYb/nLuM4cuyBqPVk4iAV+Lb Z3QP3Sa+g9vKj08GGs8H0+KwiEn7Ttd2+3bvjY7I1FUluBVNomNkKv7f3SKeBl8CpZNj nHIsOjfm1Lls7LiV5Q2IeMU1kSMOV8DP3MkR/eIHUbX83S9eLHxNQjDsjB+RWyIkBzNh 37XK4UepIR9bM0QDwvf5YTPZVEDLyJbSgfx7zZuhdjM3bkd14pmWbo50uQ833u+bfVNS qjEnlGiH0WdqIAePJv57D67EK8ULMyK/06QmcRe6i9xBMbbybsx8PhsuBJeyAKGzSAaV yldQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bEAMoBT6GQOuDEG6FoT39kPdaabvkE7v7Y5bF+sW9Xw=; b=jLJ3ZOXKYZ6fwytuuNc9sgwNIG6slLSx0nAXhG2p4SgmXapY+rZ9nmcYImL/W6jAOr bAP5Te2CZAFzbyWEQ1iJzOlC98+aTMkbtv2C38svLpbuF7N7WXR+asYxwpe/k5s0Ig5J 6kwLOYW6pYoywhDx/4UUIw/8C2mStEvUqrEDytUFVIznkgOJtTO44AAzn+DU0ksSUv56 sgZ+ZReEZFgChAyblAFLAoy2i3y0XvS5roKBOVyCgku7GfuzcQsyjxXFudkArWooqJwB sIM3+FQlpnVf/bfwA8/ldZ5J8/qnFliDJ0SmUOXGcis7smaYiKQJnBtaiDZmEH8DleWk vawg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mMEcow9mz12Zd1ZskAQNlCl7RdBjD0HR+w6zqXV6vvU5JcZOW LikBXWqd9oJdXJPZ/yZvpoBgqR5z X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXTwRMVgmG2dNAz8gHrA9ezCV0jQh5e8MbD4doxLoSTgBp/oKrNSMyvpWvmEB7iR7iAo/oGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:dd42:: with SMTP id u2mr8662314pjv.65.1590029841870; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s94sm3169868pjb.20.2020.05.20.19.57.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 19:57:21 -0700 (PDT) To: Owen DeLong , Fernando Gont Cc: v6ops@ietf.org References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <594f157e-bd9a-3c76-d839-bddbcdd05be3@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:14 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 02:57:25 -0000 On 21-May-20 14:17, Owen DeLong wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On May 20, 2020, at 19:10 , Fernando Gont > wrote: >> >> Hello, Philip, >> >> On 20/5/20 05:55, Philip Homburg wrote: >>>>> In my opinion, L-15 needs to be a SHOULD NOT or otherwise have spac= e >>>>> for the operator of the router to override this behavior. I have pr= ovided >>>>> a use case for that in the past. >>>> >>>> These are requirements for the CPE, not for the operator. i.e., what= the >>>> CPE is expected to do without human intervention. It would seem to m= e >>>> that, in that light the current "MUST" conveys the meaning of "if yo= u >>>> don't follow this, you are breaking things". =C2=A0A device that emp= loys >>>> local addresses for more than the leased time may potentially employ= >>>> addresses for longer than valid. >>> I think the need to relax L-15 comes from the fact that ISPs have an >>> incentive to use very short lease times. >>> I don't know the details, but what seems to happen is that when a >>> customer swaps one CPE for anothor, the old CPE doesn't release the >>> lease (i.e., people just poweroff or disconnect the old CPE). >>> Then when the new CPE asks for a lease and the customer has a fixed >>> prefix, the radius daemon finds that the lease is already in use by >>> the old CPE and doesn't give any lease to the new CPE. >>> The hacky quick fix for this is to set lifetimes in the lease to only= >>> a few hours at most and ask people to wait. >> >> In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't s= eem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the lifetimes. >=20 > As silly as it seems to you and me, he wants the LAN to continue to fun= ction while disconnected by misconfiguring his router. I think that is why we invented ULAs. At least, RFC 4193 starts out by st= ating that ULAs are "intended for local communications." It's a shame that draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations never made it= =2E "The benefit is to ensure stable and specific local communication reg= ardless of the ISP uplink failure." Brian >>> We have to be careful, that we don't reserve the term CPE for >>> 'device used by a customer who doesn't know any better'. >>> Historically, we allow operators of routers to set all kinds of param= eters >>> even if they would shoot themselves in the foot doing that. So the CP= E >>> specs are useful set of specifications to connect a router to a DSL o= r >>> cable connection. But that doesn't mean we should prevent to owner of= the >>> CPE from configuring the local network as that person sees fit. >> >> The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE Route= r does, by default, without human intervention. >> >> We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other things= =2E >> >> So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not = arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your CE= Router. >=20 > I suspect he=E2=80=99s interpreting it (and some vendors are not unlike= ly to as well) to say that vendors should not allow this misconfiguration= =2E >=20 > Perhaps if we add the words =E2=80=9Cby default=E2=80=9D or something l= ike that into the language to make it clear that this specifies only the = required default behavior > fo the CE Router and does not preclude knobs allowing one to misconfigu= re their device to obtain a desired result it would address his singular = concern > without relaxing the requirement to the point of doing substantial dama= ge elsewhere. >=20 > Owen >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >=20 From nobody Thu May 21 18:23:34 2020 Return-Path: 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 1841F3A0D85 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:23:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 bTTSrgxBzC5h for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B9A73A0C84 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:c935:b93f:29b2:80d5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:c935:b93f:29b2:80d5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FB57283817; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:23:23 +0000 (UTC) To: Owen DeLong Cc: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 23:40:42 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 01:23:33 -0000 On 20/5/20 23:17, Owen DeLong wrote: >> The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE >> Router does, by default, without human intervention. >> >> We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other things. >> >> So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not >> arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your >> CE Router. > > I suspect he’s interpreting it (and some vendors are not unlikely to as > well) to say that vendors should not allow this misconfiguration. > > Perhaps if we add the words “by default” or something like that into the > language to make it clear that this specifies only the required default > behavior > fo the CE Router and does not preclude knobs allowing one to > misconfigure their device to obtain a desired result it would address > his singular concern > without relaxing the requirement to the point of doing substantial > damage elsewhere. Then, how about adding this to the "Introduction" section: "This document specifies recommendations for the default behavior of CE Routers, and does not preclude the availability of configuration knobs that might allow an operator or user to manually-configure the CE Router to deviate from these recommendations" ? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Thu May 21 19:49:10 2020 Return-Path: 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 A78373A085B for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 tRn2XU33zMER for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687043A09CA for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:cd1c:69dc:ae38:bd07] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:cd1c:69dc:ae38:bd07]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04M2mtuO522612 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 May 2020 19:48:56 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04M2mtuO522612 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590115737; bh=H4SfAp+Pw1mGh3rxLicPaPhlT0+jlSjuURptwR0c1mw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=N5Qx+GmQqCKBd564GCBSVEcGlPIBIJ7B1c+i1DO6jy9Y+t3+oESyCzO4fEgqO/FDC lL9uPy2Bj1K6ela0Dv+PX+ukVC9Nv3BPSsJ39kGJPYMRHIYvXKgSbKlu7XzTZeghow b48AwH02UZprSeo0+iKgapbZI9KZcta06Z05In9E= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 19:48:55 -0700 Cc: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <09F36973-C60F-42AD-B793-0523B484C0CE@delong.com> References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> <8B7F2541-8E82-44C3-9E8E-400139948803@delong.com> To: Fernando Gont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Thu, 21 May 2020 19:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 02:49:05 -0000 Works for me=E2=80=A6=20 Owen > On May 20, 2020, at 19:40 , Fernando Gont = wrote: >=20 > On 20/5/20 23:17, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE = Router does, by default, without human intervention. >>>=20 >>> We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other = things. >>>=20 >>> So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is = not arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in = your CE Router. >> I suspect he=E2=80=99s interpreting it (and some vendors are not = unlikely to as well) to say that vendors should not allow this = misconfiguration. >> Perhaps if we add the words =E2=80=9Cby default=E2=80=9D or something = like that into the language to make it clear that this specifies only = the required default behavior >> fo the CE Router and does not preclude knobs allowing one to = misconfigure their device to obtain a desired result it would address = his singular concern >> without relaxing the requirement to the point of doing substantial = damage elsewhere. >=20 > Then, how about adding this to the "Introduction" section: >=20 > "This document specifies recommendations for the default behavior of = CE Routers, and does not preclude the availability of configuration = knobs that might allow an operator or user to manually-configure the CE = Router to deviate from these recommendations" >=20 > ? >=20 > Thanks, > --=20 > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Fri May 22 08:18:23 2020 Return-Path: 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 14ABF3A0AD3 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 2Yj0UWspcHyN for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB79E3A0AF7 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jc9R0-0000I4C; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:18:06 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 21:55:10 +0100 ." Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 17:18:03 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:18:21 -0000 >The DHCPv6 PD client doesn't know that the prefix is static, just that it >has the rights to use that prefix for up to the Valid Lifetime. >It's presumptuous and foolish of the host to over-promise the use of said >prefix downstream. I'm not talking about the DHCPv6 client, but about the RA server component. The RA server gets as input the prefix with lifetimes from DHCPv6, and (optionally) a request from the operator of the device to advertise a longer lifetime. In that case the RA server should honour the user's request. >> So this draft makes the situation worse for static prefixes to better >> deal with the unwanted situation of dynamic prefixes. To me that strikes m >e >> as completely the wrong way around. > >You might have to expand on why you think shorter lifetimes are "worse". In any more complex setup where some servers are used both internally and externally, there is a good chance that even internally the server is referenced using a public DNS name. So if the internet connection goes down and the static prefix is no longer available due to short lifetimes, then internal connections suffer. From nobody Fri May 22 08:46:57 2020 Return-Path: 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 643EC3A0AEF for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 EuyjrLWpi3wa for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E5A3A0AD7 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jc9sc-0000H1C; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:46:38 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org Cc: Fernando Gont From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 23:10:57 -0300 ." <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 17:46:38 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:46:56 -0000 >In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't >seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the lifetimes. I'm assume that there are and will be plenty of cases where hosts use the public prefix to communicate internally, certainly if the customer has a static prefix. >The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE Router >does, by default, without human intervention. > >We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other things. > >So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not >arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your >CE Router. I assume that when RFC 2119 says about MUST NOT: 'This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.' it includes overrides by the user. In particular when SHOULD NOT says: 'This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.' But maybe my interpretation is wrong. BTW, I noticed that the draft does not have the boilerplate text that refers to RFC 2119. From nobody Fri May 22 11:53:17 2020 Return-Path: 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 AFB3A3A0D0E for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 LtA0RPPhUVvs for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4983A0AD8 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:1c9c:c07d:3884:d7e0] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:1c9c:c07d:3884:d7e0]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04MIr5gC1067941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:07 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04MIr5gC1067941 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590173587; bh=K9CwVL7DXyKhW6Bt4l9lfXWaLpt86THjqjLbIDmzSzM=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=yX8z+3usNpwPmyvEF0LQEFdcRtuJgFww/6JUQAcsncOW4qsITbgcaErBfCRmLPH8/ MmddUOonePs6kk5Ql+/TCRnDnVllWT9PNvmGqFsiSUfTWP0AqXiOm37jJiWr5cLpol ZDquKB0dav4qgkgOPZ9pWEipWrMJDW9NWf9vDM0k= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:05 -0700 Cc: v6ops@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> To: Philip Homburg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 18:53:16 -0000 > On May 22, 2020, at 08:18 , Philip Homburg = wrote: >=20 >> The DHCPv6 PD client doesn't know that the prefix is static, just = that it >> has the rights to use that prefix for up to the Valid Lifetime. >> It's presumptuous and foolish of the host to over-promise the use of = said >> prefix downstream. >=20 > I'm not talking about the DHCPv6 client, but about the RA server = component. > The RA server gets as input the prefix with lifetimes from DHCPv6, and > (optionally) a request from the operator of the device to advertise a = longer > lifetime. In that case the RA server should honour the user's request. Why wouldn=E2=80=99t the operator in such a case simply configure the RA = side as static? Owen From nobody Fri May 22 12:07:41 2020 Return-Path: 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 D3FF73A00D8 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 5pkcK3i3tzA3 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F1B63A02C1 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B7FD283793; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:06:40 +0000 (UTC) To: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <0377fcec-e4a5-37d9-9261-255f8d4bfd85@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:06:23 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 19:06:50 -0000 On 22/5/20 12:46, Philip Homburg wrote: >> In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't >> seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the lifetimes. > > I'm assume that there are and will be plenty of cases where hosts use > the public prefix to communicate internally, certainly if the customer > has a static prefix. If the prefix is static, I wonder why you'd use DHCPv6. That said, a static prefix would be, I guess, a prefix with an infinite lifetime. So, if anything, one might consider this value as a special case -- i..e, if the DHCPv6 valid-lifetime is infinity (0xffffffff), set the RA lifetime to infinity. >> The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE Router >> does, by default, without human intervention. >> >> We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other things. >> >> So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is not >> arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in your >> CE Router. > > I assume that when RFC 2119 says about MUST NOT: 'This phrase, or the > phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition > of the specification.' it includes overrides by the user. > > In particular when SHOULD NOT says: 'This phrase, or the phrase "NOT > RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular > circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, > but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully > weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.' > > But maybe my interpretation is wrong. > > BTW, I noticed that the draft does not have the boilerplate text that > refers to RFC 2119. That is indeed a good point. Maybe we should copy the terminology section from RFC7084, which describes the usage of these terms in this document? Namely: ---- cut here ---- X.Y. Requirements Language Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6 access networks. ---- cut here ---- Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Fri May 22 13:41:21 2020 Return-Path: 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 19B823A0B23 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:41:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 499iffOpvt86 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [80.229.10.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A44A3A0B22 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk Received: from simons-macbookpro.thehobsons.co.uk (Simons-MacBookPro.thehobsons.co.uk [192.168.137.111]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0BCC1BC5F for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 20:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Simon Hobson In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 21:41:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <36271068-A497-47CE-ACAC-D9B6EF2B9CD5@thehobsons.co.uk> References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> To: v6ops list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 20:41:19 -0000 Philip Homburg wrote: >=20 > In any more complex setup where some servers are used both internally > and externally, there is a good chance that even internally the server = is > referenced using a public DNS name. >=20 > So if the internet connection goes down and the static prefix is no = longer > available due to short lifetimes, then internal connections suffer. Riiight. So the network admin has built a network using "consumer grade" or ISP = supplied CPE, using default configuration. Split horizon DNS is not hard, that would deal with it one way by using = local addressing internally - just like most people tend to do with IPv4 = and NAT already. Or the network admin could simply statically configure the RAs - so they = are not dependent on the WAN link(s) being up. So the answer to that corner case is simply "properly build your = network". Personally I think trying to cater for all use cases, so as to = allow a corporate level network to be built without any router config = (or, it seems, admin skills), is a road to a massively over-complicated = spec that makes it harder rather than easier to build "non-trivial" = networks. Just my 2d worth. Simon From nobody Fri May 22 15:26:51 2020 Return-Path: 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 534373A0ADA for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 K36tac5Ao-r8 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6821E3A0DCE for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470::2cb:14e0:3ebc:3bed:9e98] ([IPv6:2001:470:0:2cb:14e0:3ebc:3bed:9e98]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04MMQgvC1147542 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:44 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04MMQgvC1147542 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590186406; bh=wr4pgwusoe3heb6Zlq5iLhzcrxbOmxnDuR0AS6nbaAA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=lQxMR6i09d3we1bZhMLcNZ0FsSLmtP6cyrYQfDifNL5Pq36o60JZIOZxPGdmFklT0 e0WQ7G84OpXxZuRiaxZydJ/BRl3dR93XdLJXHxEtdMV5z5VZgvQejAGvqWVr2YTsZ5 wWf55L2cRZwViuO9yelHJHMaZ5uegaO1jqC5ARHk= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: <0377fcec-e4a5-37d9-9261-255f8d4bfd85@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:41 -0700 Cc: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <284D8244-9D33-4642-85A4-F842DC44C38A@delong.com> References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> <4887544f-d5ae-50b8-8534-35736d471951@si6networks.com> <0377fcec-e4a5-37d9-9261-255f8d4bfd85@si6networks.com> To: Fernando Gont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 22:26:50 -0000 > On May 22, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Fernando Gont = wrote: >=20 > On 22/5/20 12:46, Philip Homburg wrote: >>> In that case, how would the new CPE get its packets, anyway? I don't >>> seem to see what you'd be "fixing" by manually extending the = lifetimes. >> I'm assume that there are and will be plenty of cases where hosts use >> the public prefix to communicate internally, certainly if the = customer >> has a static prefix. >=20 > If the prefix is static, I wonder why you'd use DHCPv6. That said, a = static prefix would be, I guess, a prefix with an infinite lifetime. So, = if anything, one might consider this value as a special case -- i..e, if = the DHCPv6 valid-lifetime is infinity (0xffffffff), set the RA lifetime = to infinity. Lots of ISPs use the DHCP process to trigger TACACS or RADIUS which is = then used to hook in scripts that trigger things like static routes to = customer CPE, etc. Even though the prefix is very long lived, they use DHCP for = configuration to reduce customer interactions required for CPE changes, = etc. >>> The recommendations in this document have to do with what the CE = Router >>> does, by default, without human intervention. >>>=20 >>> We're not precluding CE Routers to have other knobs to do other = things. >>>=20 >>> So I fail to see why you say L-15 should be "relaxed". -- L-15 is = not >>> arguing that you should or should not manually configure stuff in = your >>> CE Router. >> I assume that when RFC 2119 says about MUST NOT: 'This phrase, or the >> phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute = prohibition >> of the specification.' it includes overrides by the user. >> In particular when SHOULD NOT says: 'This phrase, or the phrase "NOT >> RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular >> circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even = useful, >> but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully >> weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.' >> But maybe my interpretation is wrong. >> BTW, I noticed that the draft does not have the boilerplate text that >> refers to RFC 2119. >=20 > That is indeed a good point. Maybe we should copy the terminology = section from RFC7084, which describes the usage of these terms in this = document? Namely: >=20 > ---- cut here ---- > X.Y. Requirements Language >=20 > Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words = "MUST", > "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD = NOT", > "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used = as > described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords > not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the > purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As > such, the document points to several other specifications = (preferable > in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to = implementers > regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a > successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a > particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6 > access networks. > ---- cut here ---- >=20 > Thanks, > --=20 > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From nobody Mon May 25 07:52:22 2020 Return-Path: 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 5850B3A0CFE for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 n--3_moT0zpZ for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 038973A0CFC for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jdESc-0000H0C; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:52:14 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 May 2020 11:53:05 -0700 ." Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:52:13 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:52:21 -0000 [note, I'm replying here to multiple messages] > Why wouldnt the operator in such a case simply configure the RA > side as static? Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has to continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive implementation may end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, the implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 may actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict interpretation of the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. > If the prefix is static, I wonder why you'd use DHCPv6. That said, > a static prefix would be, I guess, a prefix with an infinite > lifetime. So, if anything, one might consider this value as a > special case -- i..e, if the DHCPv6 valid-lifetime is infinity > (0xffffffff), set the RA lifetime to infinity. The DHCPv6 lifetime is actually very short for reasons I described before. > That is indeed a good point. Maybe we should copy the terminology > section from RFC7084, which describes the usage of these terms in > this document? Namely: > > ---- cut here ---- X.Y. Requirements Language > > Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words > "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", > "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This > document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of > interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing > industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document > points to several other specifications (preferable in RFC or > stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers > regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a > successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a > particular subset of currently deploying and planned common > IPv6 access networks. I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean that an implementation is free to violate a MUST NOT, because it doesn't really mean MUST NOT? > Riiight. So the network admin has built a network using "consumer > grade" or ISP supplied CPE, using default configuration. What does this mean? Do we have 'real' routers that allowed to use longer lifetimes in RAs, because they are expensive and there are 'consumer grade' routers that are not? Is that how we want to make standards? > So the answer to that corner case is simply "properly build your > network". Personally I think trying to cater for all use cases, so > as to allow a corporate level network to be built without any router > config (or, it seems, admin skills), is a road to a massively > over-complicated spec that makes it harder rather than easier to > build "non-trivial" networks. The only thing I'm asking for is an exception to the MUST NOT that allows the admin of the CPE to override the lifetimes. That is not a remote corner case, that's the kind of stuff every serious router allows the admin to do. From nobody Mon May 25 08:52:01 2020 Return-Path: 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 4C3513A0D36 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=juniper.net header.b=PdCaTHu1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=TDVt3Fhp 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 XloG3iP5RCKy for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 F34C23A0D58 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04PFkU3S011604 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:51:14 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=rV9/ewU7ScTwq5lCBOz/p/Ldm0NLBomYHaVAMkg7VOo=; b=PdCaTHu19UUSCoxyTrt12B6LHgbGGbAGg5CP3DSTskfQF2FdVBQvUvjyzWSzm14vgbrl QVgG245CcUHwvPxCYcg2YpT8FSg4SaCTK5sou934Yj2/97OlrFgovhL+lTnMgCspbTu7 wS9LU5MDMVEAG3RDTwn0i6tzMNCJZWsDUeFUjblZl8Ed/Zt7ims/HY0Xotqydf0KlH5L WXBN16NtadvanEinleTl5uYAWUJGUUXR3xt6slpWLiYkgwO7i41Z0CIfvUjgBgfJah21 ythtX25ekFM6+DbxI5mhXIweedeY8Qq+8qFg3IZ2TriU1WPljDHkCmuCzHpf6M7rGBgF ew== Received: from nam11-bn8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11lp2175.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.58.175]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3172xyjs33-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:51:14 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OUJoaQknfcMCHXCiOUx4YJgRPlUhjPPQ8zeYucykJ3ierh4pwtXYV3pKX5NyrJKPvu+qYx/ZYINP56JsHBaQ54QIxCf0XKDahly2b1OkGvRssJA/Omv0Ok6OcCiSk4nvcMbll3URuKxZfsmQn76+HFuToyBZnQt4lcEDOXXo/R8WUHxKY6ZaW7v7JOhb5SHJIjxC0WwR+VYCoq7nsvHe1Q9Yxc2Txc/XJj12jkvGndyFh1ZtVQXjzKymxKRVWtb+3HXwh355o5+vZUFfqbdVrpqX/V7mFOdGzQ9cKY3jePaqIv85xPwzQ4xAC98JaJtb+bM82fN+9Uz97hJ9LtoHTQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rV9/ewU7ScTwq5lCBOz/p/Ldm0NLBomYHaVAMkg7VOo=; b=DmFmUxW7IrCLKIfKS8571hl+T5i59I0+IRr5K5QDfZ/gxfdXYUi01604nHStyXuIwcjCA8SaNImvH+Jk0At4fJ5d9FjZrCYH+FTuQVSDIiIE6znD9tUBwz1E05JYC/NJN/lUrsD9jK9Rlt4Q9pXx8akOhcCjw/qYqLWLXVJKmEoIgtB1sU/OHk5iW/ywdCWj2BiD42cys1YP6FzO12meXPMepMbOWOfzndR+BTlGUAP/xLiJRBeZBFvMU7pYgnvRwPXLei/dXCJFFrX4xnMFSbvipZMo4grPZO1krwvFGJ5Wb5XX+YRUgNst/MG8AKlgkRYGbatvooRQHVhpu3CtyA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rV9/ewU7ScTwq5lCBOz/p/Ldm0NLBomYHaVAMkg7VOo=; b=TDVt3FhpOkl9FKc8BNZOqhmYPB6qP8JQc3/9b2WdYLDVdozHEb3u+Kx4h5Iny9SFeVNjJd7a4j8U1cx0Zuj3s/zvEdOqr8I8Ma7b3EIH4bKv6D734IwhxcHaPf6mcp5QcH1i7i/rs6oen9+4fLGvWOC1O6NGA1z+HJnSRF6ntYQ= Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB4348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:95::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3045.10; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:51:13 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.014; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:51:13 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init Thread-Index: AQHWMqqyTv4rNNC4mEGHMzV7U0zUCKi48yQQ Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:51:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <202005251539.04PFd03X096978@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <202005251539.04PFd03X096978@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-25T15:51:07Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=15c420da-e08d-4a62-b872-ca0e9c34b030; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2 dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.4.0.45 dlp-reaction: no-action authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9a56aa58-264b-4355-6b9c-08d800c37397 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4348: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:2089; x-forefront-prvs: 0414DF926F x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Nf3nOuono+luet7fwVQ+ns+PcERYuM+U12a07T0hfrh7Tdensm8GhY7bodt2Qu0YKf1Kl4BqFhyLVVpN0cSb1+41VdwyZGH4IaDsdGvlayBudug35kd0lzJXKHPp2IpwkpGuUbcHxi7uipUXqT0j4BEq2cTuLShVZSEhqmIxg1tFIlacQ84PWsPafPRLQjZ9xdNlriSh2D4T9fg/rXbV2Wb9RaYzHGiN3nx2+1+H0WTlZ/DfOAC2ySm9KEediutfjuWj3fnC5bskLBL2JM0/AbP3AQ1vtdL9Ozz4NikLs+ga2YI1ghy/J/iNhiYclQsQe63JSgPvH53+xaIJa+JQtQ== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(376002)(8936002)(316002)(8676002)(6916009)(64756008)(66556008)(66946007)(66476007)(66446008)(76116006)(86362001)(52536014)(478600001)(2906002)(558084003)(33656002)(5660300002)(7696005)(6506007)(26005)(71200400001)(55016002)(186003)(9686003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: dp/OHKOQV6i2F5pKcAzd2KO1CB5mf3vHjQDf0j8M2LHNyjr/H5IwK5DetXmeFihvmcuqWJc8Xxgd9MNnb8LBDA6WIbTSsdbiWTi+ME5KdgDCVLfK1vYTzTbyAHPlx3iMtwEdQQQgdh5CHK4c0ubYj8m/vRpjJkyf4BQyJWWFN3nmjdYKTJK0SgwbYVbEGUlcUQsd8ID3IbtFm+axID9/rgYtJUTOOTJR3c2e4l0pKRqZdjrxzGRgKQEgdCSpnYHFrPQagaIPfbmWTYR8EMam85oeok1m/ACz0C7PXbuA7C3MCn4utwNbmuyBspPXGuVq7YO2sMIyUrf2HFqYZK2b/YxhVsgfGWN8kuTvs1WfotNHyRdeTUd3GutbycIjgo7JQ3T4HEr2LGB2HutUUIYAfCDk1xjsn9CVNOH4UfzJBehxiSpa7t8Jsv4sy0mp9qrifGuZ2WxmriNxiG1cwR/HD1nmDPCYkPplcexwvjywcqsPfhxqgAoAf7C+hcV5fqJd x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9a56aa58-264b-4355-6b9c-08d800c37397 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 May 2020 15:51:13.0171 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: KeUptQ4q9eV1tJYsWG9IuY8pEfFad6jjWsqfcG5dWXkk6CHgDdGJ3p2XwLBi3XuqV/GCw/Vab1RBZgv7iur3rA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4348 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-25_09:2020-05-25, 2020-05-25 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=519 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005250123 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:51:58 -0000 Folks, =20 This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init. =20 Please submit comments by June 8, 2020. Fred and Ron Juniper Business Use Only From nobody Mon May 25 09:49:48 2020 Return-Path: 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 766603A0DCA for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 iS_bLjH0Kitt for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tools.si6networks.com (v6toolkit.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E0133A0DC9 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:dd85:c59a:9374:35d6] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:dd85:c59a:9374:35d6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tools.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CCE63FFBF; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:49:36 +0200 (CEST) To: Philip Homburg , v6ops@ietf.org References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:30 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:49:47 -0000 On 25/5/20 11:52, Philip Homburg wrote: > [note, I'm replying here to multiple messages] > >> Why wouldnt the operator in such a case simply configure the RA >> side as static? > > Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has to > continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive implementation may > end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, the > implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 may > actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict interpretation of > the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. Again: this document specifies a recommended behavior when the CE Router handles the whole thing automatically. You don't even need permission to have a manual knob that allows you to do something else. >> That is indeed a good point. Maybe we should copy the terminology >> section from RFC7084, which describes the usage of these terms in >> this document? Namely: >> >> ---- cut here ---- X.Y. Requirements Language >> Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words >> "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", >> "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >> document are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This >> document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of >> interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing >> industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document >> points to several other specifications (preferable in RFC or >> stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers >> regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a >> successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a >> particular subset of currently deploying and planned common >> IPv6 access networks. > > I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean that an implementation is > free to violate a MUST NOT, because it doesn't really mean MUST NOT? It means this is not a protocol spec. In fact, you might well decide to not implement this spec and still be compliant with all the protocol specs. >> So the answer to that corner case is simply "properly build your >> network". Personally I think trying to cater for all use cases, so >> as to allow a corporate level network to be built without any router >> config (or, it seems, admin skills), is a road to a massively >> over-complicated spec that makes it harder rather than easier to >> build "non-trivial" networks. > > The only thing I'm asking for is an exception to the MUST NOT that allows > the admin of the CPE to override the lifetimes. That is not a remote > corner case, that's the kind of stuff every serious router allows the admin > to do. As noted, you're allowed to, already. In fact, I had suggested this text (for the "Introduction" section) in another email, which hopefully makes this very explicit: "This document specifies recommendations for the default behavior of CE Routers, and does not preclude the availability of configuration knobs that might allow an operator or user to manually-configure the CE Router to deviate from these recommendations" Thoughts? Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From nobody Mon May 25 09:52:57 2020 Return-Path: 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 0AB683A0DD5 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:52:09 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 UwIyD6bJsDR4 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 62AFB3A0DD6 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 36115AF; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:52:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1590425521; bh=UgFK00iThG999j0bPaql4DOytWIN5ujSuL3gyQweDXk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=25ybP50yDmzGbncSrWDWOgTpyki9uJbyPrYhphoEEdOcqG9eui+rx/7HennM4rpl1 xgb0mDkC7Ht2hknxwGFILzo0X2z1yi0A/Ew1TjpcIIHilwCQ8SDBn9Wv+96hDNnE7D x4s4V3qWQwXLPN/ku/P+fggDGhMeWkb1ZLFnELz0= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340489F; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 18:52:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Ron Bonica cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <202005251539.04PFd03X096978@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:52:09 -0000 On Mon, 25 May 2020, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This message initiates a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init. I read this draft in it entirety and have some comments. 2.2 typo: "follwing" " The proposed solution is discussed in [I-D.linkova-6man-grand]. In summary the follwing changes to [RFC4861] are suggested:" 3.4 "o Some wireless devices are known to fiddle with ND packets and perform various non-obvious forms of ND proxy actions. In some cases RSes might not even reach the routers." "fiddle" might not be a great term to use here, as it seems to have multiple meanings according to Merriam Webster? Then the security consideration section pointed to draft-ietf-6man-grand (or actually it didn't, it pointed to linkova-6man-grand which then pointed to draft-ietf-6man-grand), so I ended up reading that one as well. These documents seem to belong together. I tried going back in 6man as well and couldn't find much discussion on how these two documents are supposed to be handled as a pair somehow? If this nd-cache-init is an operational document referencing 6man-grand and talking about this from an operational POV, then perhaps this should be stated in the introduction? Commenting on both of them, I'd like to see some kind of text indicating that SAVI (RFC7039) RFCs had been taken into account and if anything specified in there might cause problems with the proposed approach in nd-cache-init and -grand. But to sum up, I think the problem space these drafts are tackling is worth improving, and I support this work progressing. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From nobody Mon May 25 20:13:57 2020 Return-Path: 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 186743A0BAA; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 HNWg8H0HoXjE; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC303A0BAC; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:2980:c8bf:9bea:da9f] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:2980:c8bf:9bea:da9f]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04Q3DUGu626094 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:31 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04Q3DUGu626094 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590462812; bh=ShRMLNZ54KOEEJa6afOzkC27Rls6ubCBuD5yG9KOuvU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=Vo4dHnkTh9RItrEq2CV2zTbN8ik/YmHQGd9+vYaGchsH70GC8LPIBnRP3VJOj/mvA M0jb1Khanhl3JNqnqumEqxWcsnJwQSOs4IOR89b60QW7eOwMAeytny9TJWcg4zd0PE OtX75Oja3sBzuSDCbuVkZU+hKq92apMDCq2/Y23E= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:29 -0700 Cc: Ron Bonica , "v6ops@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <202005251539.04PFd03X096978@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Mon, 25 May 2020 20:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 03:13:42 -0000 > On May 25, 2020, at 09:52 , Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: >=20 > On Mon, 25 May 2020, Ron Bonica wrote: >=20 >> Folks, >>=20 >> This message initiates a WG Last Call on = draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init. >=20 > I read this draft in it entirety and have some comments. >=20 > 2.2 typo: "follwing" >=20 > " The proposed solution is discussed in [I-D.linkova-6man-grand]. = In > summary the follwing changes to [RFC4861] are suggested:" >=20 > 3.4 >=20 > "o Some wireless devices are known to fiddle with ND packets and > perform various non-obvious forms of ND proxy actions. In some > cases RSes might not even reach the routers." >=20 > "fiddle" might not be a great term to use here, as it seems to have = multiple meanings according to Merriam Webster? >=20 Perhaps instead of =E2=80=9Cfiddle with=E2=80=9D we could use the more = technical term =E2=80=9Calter=E2=80=9D Owen From nobody Mon May 25 20:20:08 2020 Return-Path: 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 611DC3A0BAF for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:20:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 RlzxyKNgSl9p for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618A23A0BB0 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:2980:c8bf:9bea:da9f] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:2980:c8bf:9bea:da9f]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04Q3Jvnu627851 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 May 2020 20:19:59 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04Q3Jvnu627851 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590463199; bh=mTlYn42SC0FU8AO4YBqx4j1XYHNuIBrO6tDVA/swxTI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=m/2ZIBAV1e/VVoz/ZHGMZtnlMJjfWAd6FK/8p16oH/rZfOiYhmbwi1wl4ajBvKV/T Kwsfmj+TFMsoN6zeXaFL/nsaSHz3JZHj5Vn0VVCw7aPnS/adJ7fWMqxOSx/Okh8Bix HXhAFR5weBgzOYbC9OweQZTm8LySrukQV3jiXZwE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 20:19:57 -0700 Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6546385B-2BBD-41C9-B8A1-2E11C9EC34F5@delong.com> References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> To: Philip Homburg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Mon, 25 May 2020 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 03:20:06 -0000 > On May 25, 2020, at 07:52 , Philip Homburg = wrote: >=20 > [note, I'm replying here to multiple messages] >=20 >> Why wouldnt the operator in such a case simply configure the RA >> side as static? >=20 > Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has to > continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive implementation = may > end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, = the > implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 may > actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict = interpretation of > the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. We are saying that the CE router MUST NOT do this BY DEFAULT. If the CE router vendor wishes to provide a mechanism whereby the user = can misconfigure their network to misbehave in the way you describe, then = they are free to do so without being in violation of this draft. Owen From nobody Tue May 26 09:19:31 2020 Return-Path: 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 661C43A07DE for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:19:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 wyBc1SYOsxCO for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7ADB3A07E3 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jdcI5-0000IZC; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:18:57 +0200 Message-Id: To: v6ops@ietf.org Cc: Fernando Gont From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:30 -0300 ." Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 18:18:56 +0200 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:19:26 -0000 In your letter dated Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:30 -0300 you wrote: >> Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has to >> continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive implementation may >> end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, the >> implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 may >> actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict interpretation of >> the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. > >Again: this document specifies a recommended behavior when the CE Router >handles the whole thing automatically. You don't even need permission to >have a manual knob that allows you to do something else. If there is consensus that manual configuration does not violate the MUST NOT, then why not write something to the effect of: "this does not affect lifetimes explicitly configured by the operator of the CPE" >"This document specifies recommendations for the default behavior of CE >Routers, and does not preclude the availability of configuration knobs >that might allow an operator or user to manually-configure the CE Router >to deviate from these recommendations" > >Thoughts? I prefer adding that next to the MUST NOT, however, it does work for me as well. I think that MUST NOT should be reserved for cases where there are no exceptions to the required behavior. So a blanked statement that manually configuration can always override a MUST NOT strikes me as weird. From nobody Tue May 26 09:22:29 2020 Return-Path: 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 99F5B3A07E5 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 0P0krpQXNkMS for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [80.229.10.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A71CC3A07A6 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:19:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk Received: from simons-macbookpro.thehobsons.co.uk (Simons-MacBookPro.thehobsons.co.uk [192.168.137.111]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E78A81BC5F for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Simon Hobson In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:19:31 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <44F33416-351D-4244-BBC4-BAEA830A18EB@thehobsons.co.uk> References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> To: v6ops list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:20:05 -0000 Philip Homburg wrote: >> Why wouldnt the operator in such a case simply configure the RA >> side as static? >=20 > Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has to > continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive implementation = may > end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, = the > implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 may > actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict = interpretation of > the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. The complexity is caused by insisting on using "not permanent"* = addresses for things where you want connectivity to be permanent. So if = the user insist on using GUA addresses internally and wanting those = addresses to work when the WAN is down - then "something" must be = configured in order for that to work. Argue over what that "something" = may be - but don't dismiss suggestions as "complexity" when they are = required in order to make things work. * For whatever level of intermittency your WAN connectivity may cause. >> Riiight. So the network admin has built a network using "consumer >> grade" or ISP supplied CPE, using default configuration. =20 >=20 > What does this mean? Do we have 'real' routers that allowed to use > longer lifetimes in RAs, because they are expensive and there are > 'consumer grade' routers that are not? I was not addressing the issue of artificially increasing RA lifetimes - = which IMO is the wrong thing to do. But, IME there are a lot of "lower end" routers out there that have some = "interesting" limitations - some to the point where you have to wonder = what the design team were smoking when they decided on the feature set ! So, if the "network designer" simply plugs together a bunch of these low = end routers, leaves all the knobs (such as are provided) at their = defaults, and expects some things to work - such as being able to use = the ISP provided GUAs when the WAN link is down - then the network = designer is an idiot. In the case in point, the GUA won't ever change = because it's "static" - then the workaround is to simply configure a = static RA on the appropriate router (with the proviso that the router = going down will similarly break internal operations). If the router = doesn't have that option - then install something that does. If the = router does have that option, but the network designer chooses not to = use it - then the network designer is in the wrong and you can't make = standards idiot proof. If the router can't cope with such a static RA configuration - then the = router is broken. And, another point to note ... Statically configuring the prefix is = possible without the WAN link being up. If you are using GUAs internally = (e.g. by having them in the DNS) then you know what the prefix is and = can manually configure it. If the router has lost it's WAN link, and the = lease has timed out, then how to you get the router to "know about" the = prefix so it can advertise it with mangles timers ? > The only thing I'm asking for is an exception to the MUST NOT that = allows > the admin of the CPE to override the lifetimes. That is not a remote > corner case, that's the kind of stuff every serious router allows the = admin > to do.=20 That would be a router vendor's choice (see above about "interesting" = limitations), but I don't believe a standard saying what the default = actions should be is stopping it. But if (for the sake of discussion) "just" extending RA lifetimes is = "the answer" - to what value ? A day ? A week ? A month ? What happens = when the WAN has been down for "a long time" and things do eventually = time out ? I'd argue that in some ways it's worse than a "fairly quick" = failure in that it divorces the result (loss of internal connectivity) = from the event (loss of WAN link) to a degree that can make = troubleshooting harder. And yes, I've known WAN connection be down for = days or weeks. What I have in mind is the naive admin simply extends the RA timers - = maybe triggered by having internal stuff stop working when the WAN link = is down. Next time the WAN link is down, users are happy that internal = stuff still works and the admin pats himself on the back. Or it may be = that he's forgotten what he did a couple of years ago. Then (for = example) a couple of days later things stop working - but it can't be = due to the WAN being down, they've been working OK for the last couple = of days. As an aside I have seen this happen more than once. On one occasion, a = router had been added to a network to act as a switch because the user = needed some extra ports. Unfortunately, the person adding the router = forgot about it's DHCP service ... Nothing broke because it was an = all-Windows network and the PCs were typically sticky about their = addresses. Until there was another problem, and eventually a bunch of = PCs go addresses in a different IPv4 subnet. Cue some head scratching as = no changes had been done to the network for many months ! And excuse me for having long since lost track of the details of this, = were you proposing that you simply took the DHCPv6 derived PD, ignored = the lease length, and then advertised the prefix internally with longer = valid times ? If so, then presumably the router would stop advertising the prefix at = some point when the lease expired - but devices would continue to use = the prefix due to the extended validity timers ? What happens to devices = that re-configure interfaces (link down event, reboot, sleep-wait, ...) = - do they simply not use the prefix as it's no longer being advertised ? What happens when the user - either by themselves or as the first thing = instructed by their ISP - reboots the router to see if it restores = connectivity ? On the assumption that the router does not have = non-volatile storage (for things like this, as is usually the case with = low end routers), it will then fail to advertise the prefix anyway - so = no device bringing up a link will be able to access internal devices = using their GUAs. Simon From nobody Wed May 27 01:27:40 2020 Return-Path: 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 939FB3A0B67 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 01:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 Iw3EK4qQvtSY for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 01:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E55E3A0B66 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 01:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:547d:4569:d53e:3eb7] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:547d:4569:d53e:3eb7]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04R7bHcV1420136 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 May 2020 00:37:18 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 04R7bHcV1420136 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1590565039; bh=9ejIigAh/6i9Z4HkFYutAspA797+IpMVSzmXE8Z4x/A=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=HrIPdBs9rlqI3vknv5izf/ikrWTQJF0N70yCre9yUahMIRxgbZCukbkdQkBROj8kL cuEW/dmv6dUKMpY5eSU/zjjMDKfhbemGUAhOaiitd97TsQo7Plj5I9MF/TyclCrbKJ LesRaNlU/103q7q2P2gtVBkb8heTP//Qb/aMlajg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 00:37:16 -0700 Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, Fernando Gont Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8aa3102e-22b1-60ed-2d99-838f3fdf1736@si6networks.com> To: Philip Homburg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 27 May 2020 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:27:39 -0000 > On May 26, 2020, at 09:18 , Philip Homburg = wrote: >=20 > In your letter dated Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:30 -0300 you wrote: >>> Yes, but it introduces extra complexity. In particular, the CPE has = to >>> continue to request a prefix using DHCPv6. Then a naive = implementation may >>> end up with two entries for the same prefix in a single RA. Finally, = the >>> implementor may realize that filtering out the prefix from DHCPv6 = may >>> actually cause the CPE to violate a MUST NOT, so a strict = interpretation of >>> the CPE may cause the CPE to remove the user supplied prefix. >>=20 >> Again: this document specifies a recommended behavior when the CE = Router=20 >> handles the whole thing automatically. You don't even need permission = to=20 >> have a manual knob that allows you to do something else. >=20 > If there is consensus that manual configuration does not violate the=20= > MUST NOT, then why not write something to the effect of: "this does = not > affect lifetimes explicitly configured by the operator of the CPE=E2=80=9D= It=E2=80=99s already there=E2=80=A6 The entire document is about what = the router can put into RAs that are based on lifetimes received via DHCP-PD. If you=E2=80=99re = hand-configuring them, then you=E2=80=99re already out of the defined scope of the document. >> "This document specifies recommendations for the default behavior of = CE=20 >> Routers, and does not preclude the availability of configuration = knobs=20 >> that might allow an operator or user to manually-configure the CE = Router=20 >> to deviate from these recommendations" >>=20 >> Thoughts? >=20 > I prefer adding that next to the MUST NOT, however, it does work for = me > as well. >=20 > I think that MUST NOT should be reserved for cases where there are no > exceptions to the required behavior. So a blanked statement that = manually > configuration can always override a MUST NOT strikes me as weird.=20 If that=E2=80=99s the weirdest thing you encounter in RFCs, then you = lead a sheltered life. Owen From nobody Wed May 27 07:19:06 2020 Return-Path: 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 3EC783A0D86 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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=juniper.net header.b=1VqaItbM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=YmkP3x6N 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 HKWE-a-zYveV for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 E4D8D3A0D85 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108163.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04REIGIS009070 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:19:01 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=HSpAEH2Pgw/6PeIVTm/wWGlwM8F+oNorx9Vd4dgpCqg=; b=1VqaItbMenikpynWMJR+HCivKVcuAOgeb4VvCfHw7DTjoF3koktq+LyNQQzCEO6drSiE uqs9Czx5L5c8a7obMERzWIazRP+FawsbT1eSC+ALmRjB5aug4868gtg/gB5/fDWbgAj+ Bdwd7837WYIA3+1vX1B8Rkt1sf8/RGG4sMbrTBzHoqr/ZggFbOGlzpk9ZsesUMro95EM 8HuiNgsu8PxhSAgGXb0jnSUSflmwnIz0OzV0zYVohsn1KU+ziAjaZ/bAmxOTXYh9QFVw Yq+N9zVAdzNqqLSAC8Rff/5UOFLFhJ08x57+bL4vL/XMLEa8xYYHUM8Oz1+WqF0XcKhZ Aw== Received: from nam12-mw2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12lp2048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.66.48]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 319rbm05k6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:19:01 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ItPV2LGRlogEON1ZKoVdoaWbWP6kJpFdp4tqCjTAg7AqCdrTgzCNKwG0YFqUrokrv3atejd5xwPNu0pxqmg/f2zXOcnN1VyrDBLA4YgnHVyVT341oyFCUL06aLoFBjJ4ZU4VfTkWlGjeruMDahz5MxwXB8opeDImIFGYHcHeYe6Wwjvj+iDqScr6Fj5ut6MP/SAify8tspc2IhMj/4Xl3/tNEqQ4zh539H5pbdrkW5Vz7t3XHECa4bhMYfZqU0ZRFmu0/Ln3iLNUjPUpWTgzF7ZV/SSB2dZ9199SbWnJv/R0v+5BH/0QpbKFJiSsiIHIrhuk6heae5yDGqbRL/HLRQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HSpAEH2Pgw/6PeIVTm/wWGlwM8F+oNorx9Vd4dgpCqg=; b=jkITswcIsjasdTJrGy8gnr6BwTO6iyQ9zKZZ/tbSk98KSoq0mgh+F1TcEeygfhtLyLFelPgGy7ZK94+3UcmddHZlmPPfIhN90OOB7YrGv3MknNCdgEE6Q8udxY7QR32ScG9bvuTcYd4+Mjq0dRXH6c6iLmpGov7uGvM4H6ZV2N0PFBzPsDgMkVDpl+KKIECbDWCxg3LldXpnaQlhbGC9a4oMj7EOoluMZ48CCyFqxaVv7jzXEu9KhnsGwI6LBxhF+zIAvkG0w4cuyaNijNM0uChf0PSdqVJFGH+R4Gwh1VaAqOqDm0QDaWA23zWosUsPR9rxd3ykO6gSOl7SYBoqow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HSpAEH2Pgw/6PeIVTm/wWGlwM8F+oNorx9Vd4dgpCqg=; b=YmkP3x6Nri4tso9dN932y3AJgDDEbl6byH92r+SpePT3ZlOEGmQ07u4V1LDPNGNF0gRprvlXbE01kBhLV8h6d+X5vroVo5ous1q3IUCjx73viQMvotre/vKYYT+YJIVQs9VDmqZ/kLOI9h6/0v1CXC+9nMBfQaYlar6EsH4XreI= Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:122::15) by DM6PR05MB4364.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:a2::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3045.8; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:18:59 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3]) by DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c020:3bf5:7230:75e3%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.018; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:18:59 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "v6ops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Last Calls Thread-Index: AdY0MW4Ujw7zxXMHT4uWC0Vrzo8Mjg== Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-05-27T14:17:40Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=ec99291b-7865-450d-b21f-85a192b285eb; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2 dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.4.0.45 dlp-reaction: no-action authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [108.28.233.91] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7f85ec54-c76c-48c4-6c46-08d80248e667 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4364: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6108; x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: yKt5r1pE+MeD107L+Y6OhrwbYH7H2wbw6JxgYnBMYZiYvf55zOdCCISlED99fwa+AaoclPO/Pv4Ue9IwWgdGcmAOfdRf0av/HlcnmChxe+3FW8ZZUeFhOQetmarQOhkf/20Ql90WbJtaEDK3Fhi8V8SkwTGkr3stSao0dN+A06A+PLs5E5ALqe/5TcLU4YmruWMMHQw9sOa7q8tQQY63h991+08ciO0DpVvnEuphuVTWIt3Clo+qUY6cTmD+QdlH7511Gzqb5tbbojy/aRimawFk1t+9zZPYr/EnlEV5jmsBhsPFBcnnD3LdZR8Yjbvv x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(66476007)(66446008)(6916009)(5660300002)(4744005)(66946007)(6506007)(64756008)(33656002)(8676002)(71200400001)(26005)(76116006)(9686003)(7116003)(186003)(478600001)(55016002)(66556008)(7696005)(52536014)(3480700007)(8936002)(2906002)(86362001)(316002)(83380400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR05MB6348CF0C3FBC0B3A2CBEEBADAEB10DM6PR05MB6348namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7f85ec54-c76c-48c4-6c46-08d80248e667 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 14:18:59.8354 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: UOBpVPQz65lAB8oyjd4UZinxYSK2LwhxIY/QYnIw8A4pptvNl30Bsdyzk4XuC/vxzYaA1/2YF8idv3JPoEjORw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4364 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-27_03:2020-05-27, 2020-05-27 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=657 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005270109 Archived-At: Subject: [v6ops] WG Last Calls X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:19:04 -0000 --_000_DM6PR05MB6348CF0C3FBC0B3A2CBEEBADAEB10DM6PR05MB6348namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, We have completed WG LC on all of the following: * draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum * draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum * draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-optimization * draft-ietf-dhc-v6only * draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init Would any of the authors like to update their drafts one more time to addre= ss WGLC comments? R= on Juniper Business Use Only --_000_DM6PR05MB6348CF0C3FBC0B3A2CBEEBADAEB10DM6PR05MB6348namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Folks,

 

We have completed WG LC on all of the following:

 

  • draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
  • draft-ietf-v6op= s-slaac-renum
  • draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-optimization
  • draft-ietf-dhc-v6only
  • draft-ietf-v6= ops-nd-cache-init

 

Would any of the authors like to update their drafts= one more time to address WGLC comments?

 

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;  Ron

 

 


Juniper Business= Use Only

--_000_DM6PR05MB6348CF0C3FBC0B3A2CBEEBADAEB10DM6PR05MB6348namp_-- From nobody Wed May 27 11:59:03 2020 Return-Path: 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 6030E3A086A; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=hLgFj3X3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=uLtbusPu 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 eToBsk9getlJ; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E6F3A0869; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:58:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13351; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590605936; x=1591815536; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=tnrDXpD6yknV8GZ4cc5W4Oje10KqM4LOvC5HvHJA2o0=; b=hLgFj3X3qxZhvedHaiSlQLFlSBIqkjjoLL2ESksAeA53G9WZyyjk3aLW X7hxP74UzifUb+wobQ3r+aTm5WofBcMYZh4QzMdl9noV8EHXbzzQb5sRj 6lstbvMLJUi7Kp/P7zsU44G8DP561qUO6h0plkyShHHun3VM0L3vTK/Up s=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AKjexPh89xv8wK/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZRaN5PhxghnOR4qIo/5Hiu+DtafmVCRA5Juaq3kNfdRKUA?= =?us-ascii?q?NNksQZmQEsQavnQU32JfLndWo2ScJFUlI2/nynPw5SAsmtL1HXq2e5uDgVHB?= =?us-ascii?q?i3PAFpJ+PzT4jVicn/1+2795DJJQtSgz/oarJpJxLwpgLU5cQ=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DIBQCpt85e/4MNJK1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgUqBIS9SB29YLywKh2EDjT+TW4RnglIDVQsBAQEMAQElCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGERAKCFgIkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVcBC4VyAQEBAQMSGxMBATc?= =?us-ascii?q?BDwIBCBEEAQEvMh0IAQEEDgUIGoMFgX5NAy4BDqQ3AoE5iGF0gTSDAQEBBYE?= =?us-ascii?q?yAYQUGIIOAwaBOIJkgkiHGBqCAIERQ4JNPoEEgWMBAQOBZCtLgk+CLY5liSe?= =?us-ascii?q?LBpAhCoJUhzN3kFOCZIkDkB6CA4UHi0uJcI9mhBMCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWoigVZ?= =?us-ascii?q?wFYJwAQEyUBgNkECDcoUUhUJ0NwIGCAEBAwl8iysBgQ8BAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,442,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="500409732" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2020 18:58:55 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04RIwtiA007026 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:55 GMT Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:58:55 -0500 Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:58:54 -0400 Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:58:54 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=aWScDZjTNIro2NjfQJVyLiW/bdbM44ZoYwMTN0+sKTnx8nygS/xmiEKQArktOrqOM2+4DxWTY+2CA3RQlxr6VSSojyHXFyk9YNY8SS8/5OVp6EmetD3L6OgLKzMSYhtMAopWboMmrL2nGijoH/FnKY4JaXqWa3Ua3QpSebXfqUwctSAzTvXxrtQPBznpTImqadVHdVodUZ6wbIoAfwMRvBwk1XZcvZ3kGwaldV77SJmW1LXoJ3JTuEKDGRWj8eBoxCzf+u025/s+hw1++t6vqxwUGqnA350N/0WYjxGBWbWMXQFRTpA6JiCvrKY7dI6qG1ik9osSiDb2frgIpjQHqQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=EexF/1E4Urb0ex86qn7RraGMP8AUtf9G9BFAU3j7Ozc=; b=QneP1UW5McE6q0fi5tkRUb8yO32TNxaVMx9h1YPtdgNtrfVXi84cBSH13ghar4MeI1h5NT4m8O6VlDwfmGeyFM5KPQjHLe4zTFlWYa+KnzVi579WEL81f4tYZHzrMLy+YDW6Fs52Nfdd3TPxoLiuLvyCYmG69cZKiaf6LrTw2UDoR+um5yHLaBtKNv1NOXrelr37wKeOFbPmLlwL9Zmc7rYIuHyzSbTHL1qtI8BmeGW9HjgbzW445YlknydvLlunP74OccPp/qf+Qc0zD043rwo942ixXwmycAVI/iCGlAgwKn7QkbOKvAIFWzVLL0zpv8AHaW5f1x8Awucukky2sg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=EexF/1E4Urb0ex86qn7RraGMP8AUtf9G9BFAU3j7Ozc=; b=uLtbusPuEfvgpgobV3OmQ6agiRkBtROHAcrwK3/iSPOSuqIBrOGBPX/g1Bgirb04JqM/8Xv35OmKQPP0Zc4BLfX9/DHDBLxLJAbsn05YYXPpfSFS+XzZ+9xSPdsD9mAeDQ2xfQHSOGt53ErHcWbPL8yE4sW5Ftio/R/7hchapJo= Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN7PR11MB2834.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:a9::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.24; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:52 +0000 Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.016; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:52 +0000 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" CC: IPv6 Operations Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Thread-Index: AdYnlBw72h8m3/s6QES4usbyMd1QVwMxDHdA Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.66] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9c31ba95-4a4b-4bd7-a526-08d8026fffce x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2834: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: +FCzRAYfnNqi2DbjneBP0OHTsS0RfFrTdoKjTlM7R0KONyIXibEtl+ZSgzslwf6i2DEM06p9wP1pEtZQqGlQgu5IEVVrETs0cJVHK/uo3OPjHCgGWf+BsLGjMVuiIkPdbXjI8LO+nASo26y8IO5cTTaEGqKX43dnopPbIfQVTjLZXp5IMPXPK7ltm64juq4JrPJwM5GIgHaraVau9iuMo9ZFXkvSm1xoz5jBFg2Wkw/PJq5Mp8+yhqCLupbczuyMU817ITVPVEopuP6yovvG7VVdbvBVysVypqVlcfpAd9jHmC5/HdzAKYfTX8OANOgznxmb9OaK5DkHVxyFVoJuVVTngOMENMvyc4jtjkMzptTLjxVRXtztnuteUidcyr8DDqVrYAxbC/GCDrM04TPdnA== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(6506007)(166002)(83380400001)(53546011)(450100002)(52536014)(8936002)(6916009)(55016002)(86362001)(4326008)(9686003)(8676002)(186003)(26005)(2906002)(33656002)(66446008)(66556008)(66476007)(316002)(71200400001)(966005)(7696005)(76116006)(478600001)(66946007)(5660300002)(64756008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR11MB2547A8FA4A7817325482BEF9CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9c31ba95-4a4b-4bd7-a526-08d8026fffce X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 18:58:52.8144 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: G9AVs47bHK66a6Usw0+OzqoSUc4mUAjCMdHMDVkgB+XOopNcKq1KcLEqaU8pI7wf X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2834 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:59 -0000 --_000_BN7PR11MB2547A8FA4A7817325482BEF9CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: I for the dhc WG chairs, as Tomek is a document author, and in agreement wi= th the v6ops WG chairs, have determined this document passed WGLC. There were some WGLC comments (in particular, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/= arch/msg/v6ops/BfhD_wUVKrVVQIzV4tsw9cualr0/) and the authors need to addres= s these before the document can be sent on. As shepherd, I will also complete the shepherd review and may have a few ad= ditional comments. However, we do hope to send the document on to our AD and IESG shortly. Thanks to those that commented during the WGLC and in developing this docum= ent. Thanks to the authors for their work on the document. * Bernie From: dhcwg On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Hello: The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Pref= erred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Sta= ndards Track document. There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). Thank you! * Tomek & Bernie --_000_BN7PR11MB2547A8FA4A7817325482BEF9CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello:

 

I for the dhc WG chairs, as Tomek is a document auth= or, and in agreement with the v6ops WG chairs, have determined this documen= t passed WGLC.

 

There were some WGLC comments (in particular, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BfhD_wUVKrVVQIzV4tsw9cualr0/) and the authors need to address these before the document can be sent on= .

 

As shepherd, I will also complete the shepherd revie= w and may have a few additional comments.

 

However, we do hope to send the document on to our A= D and IESG shortly.

 

Thanks to those that commented during the WGLC and i= n developing this document. Thanks to the authors for their work on the doc= ument.

 

  • Bernie

 

From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/20= 20

 

Hello:

 

The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc= -v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC fo= r this document.

 

Please review this document and provide your comment= s and whether you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC).

 

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Standards = Track document.

 

There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as= of this writing).

 

Thank you!

 

  • Tomek & Bernie

 

--_000_BN7PR11MB2547A8FA4A7817325482BEF9CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_-- From nobody Wed May 27 12:37:32 2020 Return-Path: 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 247593A0AE8; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=CkRar7uR; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=GXnCNmmp 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 uxbVDsBw8xGy; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805373A0ACF; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=25306; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590608237; x=1591817837; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FwHnsmgsRI/BSzn+wIHhvUs1oa/zZqYumeGRI/zKt+0=; b=CkRar7uR1Mfn9HGAkG951xVZrSKWuBFPEq3U397r8hcBMcpP3aoMo52U CIBlGV4IY1E5zdh1/3OgeupF8qjeukEgZwKkIKawthWHoXld19L/IAjzl 4YNBFpqp0G+BQN75+gXdRQWybuqu5ExT1DjdX1MVW+29rmWwtsbULQkNT I=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ae1ZL9Rx5yaN4J4nXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRWFt/RgkFGPWp/UuLpIiOvT5qbnX2FIoZOMq2sLf5EEUR?= =?us-ascii?q?gZwd4XkAotDI/gawX7IffmYjZ8EJFEU1lorHC2LUYTH9zxNBXep3So5msUHR?= =?us-ascii?q?PyfQN+OuXyHNvUiMK6n+C/8pHeeUNGnj24NLhzNx6x6w7Ws5ob?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DLBQD3wM5e/4wNJK1mHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgUqBIS9SB29YLywKh2EDjT6YQoFCgRADVQsBAQEMAQElCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGERAKCFgIkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVcBC4VyAQEBAQMSGxMBATA?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQ8CAQgRBAEBIQENMh0IAQEEDgUIGoMFgX5NAy4BDqQyAoE5iGF0gTSDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYEyAYQAGIIOAwaBOIJkgkiHGBqCAIERQ4JNPoEEgWMBAQOBSBwrS4JPgi2?= =?us-ascii?q?OZYknJYphkCEKglSHM3eQU4JkiQOQHoIDhQeLS4lwj2aEEwIEAgQFAg4BAQW?= =?us-ascii?q?BaiKBVnAVGoJWAQEyUBgNkECDcoUUhUJ0NwIGCAEBAwl8iysBgQ8BAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,442,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="516592115" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2020 19:37:15 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04RJbFIQ022447 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2020 19:37:15 GMT Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:37:15 -0500 Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 14:37:15 -0500 Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:37:15 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=k4e+v7ZUYVEGmljYUF+GgARX6SLSw1n6aKzbVfrH+FhAQ67Cy6ZEkjNAsyzuXhQV7j5pmGOWHKOhf9d5sBrChU7q8cn3w7Y3eFjnsF6IY4BvacQ1z/Dz2K/J7yUzCl6b9Q55UGvWsBtkWulDg60lretDXK4TeGs9hbHEExUmHh/+NwFo1YtvhgylolAVrL9BiIUT7UQnvNk1G6V/TU3yPNblRgAvqBw/hOz0lW77bHMaX4jdrzaPZioPIf9KQY8TDPq06Qiqd2tPP+hojJ86C1XOWdxWVYtZrCt9XrAA4Nu9PMnGxqovUV9qXWK5sdvqVFYVZ5ucy0QeSK2G3iawaQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=c2MsV32kI1bHGRlgSHpC0d+wdXjOAwIxX40bhXm7KiQ=; b=MNMMIUr6jzbxI/VqwQVyf08nKNyr9Rwi8MxkUewrqGbhYHatt6NLbtgtZsKiwDpNQgnQ1JIUnHl2/NahHmghbGu+UGQ5PBHPb8Ke5QyCy+V+y7bseI0m6jbN0UnGMFdWLSFAadG70EJN3ImE2QfKn5i7nNdV2F1iqjWzB/GkTByST0Q2766WS3MbICSnih/+G5qalTzbOToGqI8qcOkbOLjzMFGFe+rHQ0mKvd1ZGIrhyIcUuNMSFpz1uBj2kKpn25Diz5x9SsS5AtDqn447waT0loFTqKZiXcwtM5dQOqcxs/+Zv7jfWAsABlwGozhIMAw6/FqgytsNOCPB3g/vPg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=c2MsV32kI1bHGRlgSHpC0d+wdXjOAwIxX40bhXm7KiQ=; b=GXnCNmmpqfF9S3Exmgu+UkrgoNuITVi1mqpgUZBQ+GmF/9wODvfdoEm3v3qq7lrKzW+VkSSWs3n6+cytVUUg8espayOLdLYDortDNSSzfJot7+0LdOWDpwPH6sPZsvC7621w3slIxzQhN3pvobNbuNRcCav5wrQ37P1doprSBUk= Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN7PR11MB2658.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:ae::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.27; Wed, 27 May 2020 19:37:12 +0000 Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.016; Wed, 27 May 2020 19:37:12 +0000 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only@ietf.org" CC: IPv6 Operations , "dhcwg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Thread-Index: AdYnlBw72h8m3/s6QES4usbyMd1QVwMxDHdAAACFQ4A= Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.66] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bc31cdc0-7255-4b55-02b7-08d802755a8b x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2658: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1BqYLPHaWnVSGogjW7vZYD924tBZ7VNcFuLI//YF/xGaluwrhlaZgGdSN6T0PqY6gD4TMrSD1z678RrfIapR41PBDdPwA5oYkNGes54gZWvhtbcEwEGNRKJTrTiUYkuaqzrv3v+rEK5WbHWH/BdDDYT1MWZ0/r9L3gM9ShS7YXUPhQ/5jyeZl5BcH+WKYmb/CtjOeTaNQW1ChDtqgf0pMw0KUWa93vFNMnLgqckiTGo0aP3huB4cpOr2JdKncbzfXNaUqkiiuxjX84GquHe3q0oXgCwKZK/Tc3TCAUOiAzWNBMMBFqUuZTnWQDy7TGKcKmSoKGmHty5UuCupjTGLzl8Fe64Z+kOu+VGWqPz4Oplqwwvn+kcPlZpcJo16WlnRNh9Odx53rol+Mn6skktM5Q== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(71200400001)(2906002)(6916009)(966005)(54906003)(9686003)(316002)(166002)(52536014)(8676002)(478600001)(8936002)(33656002)(2940100002)(450100002)(26005)(4326008)(5660300002)(86362001)(66556008)(7696005)(53546011)(83380400001)(186003)(6506007)(55016002)(66446008)(64756008)(76116006)(66476007)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR11MB25473A693F595ECDEFB18194CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bc31cdc0-7255-4b55-02b7-08d802755a8b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 19:37:12.4784 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: YOWGNYHFPUJxMvqUniZBmenP7wOGEh0F9kraOCCsdZ4WN7Sl6aUJUjguwycZLZTk X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2658 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:37:27 -0000 --_000_BN7PR11MB25473A693F595ECDEFB18194CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In regards to the shepherd review, I have the following mostly nits: 1. "Behaviour" is used whereas I think the IETF generally uses American = English so "behavior" would be more appropriate? 2. The acknowledgements has "(AI: add more names here)" that should like= ly be removed now? Or are there additional names that you planned to add? 3. Per the Shepherd Write-up: "Will publication of this document change = the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page he= ader, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFC= s are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point t= o the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the o= ther RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain= why the WG considers it unnecessary.": * The header specifies "Updates: 2563" * The Abstract does not indicate that it updates RFC2563. * The Introduction does not indicate that it updates RFC2563. It would be a good idea to modify the Abstract and Introduction to include = a mention of the updated RFC. 1. It might be wise to widen the "field name" in the table in 3.1 to all= ow for a bit more room and clean up the formatting of the description text = (such as for Value). Thanks much! * Bernie From: Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:59 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Hello: I for the dhc WG chairs, as Tomek is a document author, and in agreement wi= th the v6ops WG chairs, have determined this document passed WGLC. There were some WGLC comments (in particular, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/= arch/msg/v6ops/BfhD_wUVKrVVQIzV4tsw9cualr0/) and the authors need to addres= s these before the document can be sent on. As shepherd, I will also complete the shepherd review and may have a few ad= ditional comments. However, we do hope to send the document on to our AD and IESG shortly. Thanks to those that commented during the WGLC and in developing this docum= ent. Thanks to the authors for their work on the document. * Bernie From: dhcwg On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Hello: The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only (IPv6-Only-Pref= erred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC for this document. Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC). Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Sta= ndards Track document. There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing). Thank you! * Tomek & Bernie --_000_BN7PR11MB25473A693F595ECDEFB18194CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In regards to the shepherd review, I have the follow= ing mostly nits:

 

  1. “Behaviour” is used whereas I think the IETF generally us= es American English so “behavior” would be more appropriate?
  2. The acknowledgements has “(AI: add more names here= )” that should likely be removed now? Or are there additional names t= hat you planned to add?
  3. Per the Shepherd Write-up: = 220;Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFC= s? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, = and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introd= uction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relati= onship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information= is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.”:
    1. The header specifies “Updates: 2563”
    2. The Abstract does not indicate that it updates RFC2563.
      3. The Introduction does not indicate that it updates RFC2563.

It would be a good idea to modify the Abstrac= t and Introduction to include a mention of the updated RFC.

  1. It might be wise to widen the “field name” in the table i= n 3.1 to allow for a bit more room and clean up the formatting of the descr= iption text (such as for Value).

 

Thanks much!

 

  • Bernie

 

From: Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:59 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020

 

Hello:

 

I for the dhc WG chairs, as Tomek is a document auth= or, and in agreement with the v6ops WG chairs, have determined this documen= t passed WGLC.

 

There were some WGLC comments (in particular, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BfhD_wUVKrVVQIzV4tsw9cualr0/) and the authors need to address these before the document can be sent on= .

 

As shepherd, I will also complete the shepherd revie= w and may have a few additional comments.

 

However, we do hope to send the document on to our A= D and IESG shortly.

 

Thanks to those that commented during the WGLC and i= n developing this document. Thanks to the authors for their work on the doc= ument.

 

  • Bernie

 

From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:01 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/20= 20

 

Hello:

 

The authors have requested a WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc= -v6only (IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP). This starts a 2 week WGLC fo= r this document.

 

Please review this document and provide your comment= s and whether you support this document moving forward or not by May 25th, 2020 (23:59 UTC).

 

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-v6only. This is a Standards = Track document.

 

There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as= of this writing).

 

Thank you!

 

  • Tomek & Bernie

 

--_000_BN7PR11MB25473A693F595ECDEFB18194CFB10BN7PR11MB2547namp_-- From nobody Wed May 27 13:24:46 2020 Return-Path: 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 7BE393A0B40; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4b47_CM8S7tm; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (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 63E193A0B41; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id fs4so2097624pjb.5; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=am/pg2mSfJF6BXPnHJzmYwz8DszqbhIttIgg0mw79Hk=; b=EfmV5QVXc/37RgxZb50CAapGtYVY5mGrmlUkDuc51n/b0T7/Mtp+q8zv0qMbG/oMgh N2MYCH5gX5gK7VWBTFX5ziYTtaFhx1SE2aHouDjN7vXXEhxm/jw6YgAhB5UPpBaxE6s5 XIYt//hdiFiyP3bDdy7J6g6OO5dYt6knuG/1N5GwMTkGurURE76P2g57GMCRHp8HLEtJ XTVlIYS/lIT+Cf2o3E8vFOLL0EUhPU9qNYaRpEMWTDXLID8h1RysoajWYFvZELg4I/M0 QsWQW8zxG/H9QPVn0HafRfWtwwXR6A+TRQ1mvUtRiRfSC7d2OmH9wsx4E+MjGa4O4q0I Sa7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=am/pg2mSfJF6BXPnHJzmYwz8DszqbhIttIgg0mw79Hk=; b=nmFB5WkaS1eGWNZPTPIgXqniv3VRXOBINVaM+Gtgb7fKtEcqSHE4Kcx6S0MkUjJBOw kl+m0QlV85KtRJZqMSSJyODWmiFk7Ehn07HAnNmjilDSlheJXu3uaQPO3oB/tv7p/SRj JWLH28K5aGHUV2lMrnJudbF7AY+Jr6MTfRbqDHoe/fRZIF3dbrJAS5Z5d8bVvza6Uu/n mqwKObXfJ+X6ENJyX7Jo0+OCgerGx8ISChbVd8+Ac8m5eKzTLZK23P920o5ZCZXV4NtC H6KF0QyVHoqSLDOEB2dXoocKwF5TpeBsA3qzwpZQ739srCtHv6l0W9TMMYJdkJcb2LUC 1DEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533h2qn3JDDUkZSE/NMgdbZS0ytomgQ/t/d72mHSGrNVMgqOKmt4 n2I7b6qDkvSfES6hk/XJMPkpmvto X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzC3hp/Dmd2eH42bd/kh3DOsNpVQaAMd6Y4DicdPCwdxVfa32vTFZedHS8ZjWW0HQ0fMzkqRA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7847:: with SMTP id e7mr115475pln.157.1590611078378; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm2777577pfb.73.2020.05.27.13.24.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2020 13:24:37 -0700 (PDT) To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" , "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only@ietf.org" Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , IPv6 Operations References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:24:32 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 20:24:41 -0000 On 28-May-20 07:37, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: =2E.. > 1. =E2=80=9CBehaviour=E2=80=9D is used whereas I think the IETF genera= lly uses American English so =E2=80=9Cbehavior=E2=80=9D would be more app= ropriate? As far as I know, the RFC Editor aims at consistency within a document, s= o either all "behaviour" or all "behavior" is OK, and the same for other = transatlantic spelling preferences. Brian From nobody Wed May 27 13:38:01 2020 Return-Path: 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 087103A0CDF; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=VbZznMUT; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=QxC+s060 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 YCrQLSJyi4cT; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDBB93A0DAF; Wed, 27 May 2020 13:37:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1122; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590611843; x=1591821443; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=IEa87Lt7ObD098sM6/DEO5mzWrXvfwcbVbw5vvckikQ=; b=VbZznMUT3nVEXTSv5BWqHaUUGpupDQSycI16l/uqmZnzoC85pYpIG2Tz g/MKULDUu0/HtJT1a6hUI0qzS7Z3/ndVGALXFR6K6QAordHLFJt1UJIKs BCNP/O3N2/MEi+0wmndbh4xvaFehlnFrtvbhKEXuLhI6v8xgyPXuC3JWh A=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ArebnPx/W6Lb9Ev9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZRCN6vBkjVuPVoLeuLpIiOvT5qbnX2FIoZOMq2sLf5EEUR?= =?us-ascii?q?gZwd4XkAotDI/gawX7IffmYjZ8EJFEU1lorH6+OElRXs35Yg6arni79zVHHB?= =?us-ascii?q?L5OEJ8Lfj0HYiHicOx2qiy9pTfbh8OiiC6ZOZ5LQ69qkPascxFjA=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DeAQCyzs5e/4cNJK1mGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQEBARIBAQEDAwEBAUCBSoFQUgeBRy8sCoQbg0YDjT6Jeo5IglIDVQsBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?MAQEtAgQBAYREAheBfwIkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVcMhXIBAQEBAxI?= =?us-ascii?q?REQwBATcBCwQCAQgRBAEBAwImAgICHxEVCAgBAQQBDQUIGoVQAy4BpFUCgTm?= =?us-ascii?q?IYXaBMoMBAQEFhSwNC4IOCYEOKoJkiWAaggCBEUOCTT6BBIEagjKDEjOCLZF?= =?us-ascii?q?noQJKCoJUlAOEep4IhQeLS4w9kSwCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWoigVZwFYMkUBgNkEC?= =?us-ascii?q?DcopWdAI1AgYBBwEBAwl8iygBgQ8BAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,442,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="683844176" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2020 20:37:22 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04RKbM2e024571 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2020 20:37:22 GMT Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:37:22 -0500 Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:37:22 -0500 Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:37:22 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OJdo4fOBG68nZphx56FTHtXZL883BDigx2DaD3uZIpthfSY6cFDq4gX4Ogxpl1DBmDdBP9bDVi/AlMbsb6xwnThtOY4nsDhzltGLMwXeF0HgZzDeWZW9a/Qe2zto+CvczPuwO+UFBuGlc/B0/WRphg+4dW9MrkhOUNDxiR2K0mpiyVOHaBCuBkYGNZHUCVpJfWNQSP9qYSSXkB71zfLGVeXB3qGmWC7yls1NUx0zcq5Dy/sf5D+rZy7LhIFhj4opuBzXUKeKSZczNmm+gadfw3DUHEKj40VVytarskvEmr3PJJS6SP+WMmqSIP+zGIfdNz4S5yxmfgFbqqKdJfIP6w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IEa87Lt7ObD098sM6/DEO5mzWrXvfwcbVbw5vvckikQ=; b=MY2QRzfdYknAp96SD7iyY6WI7p/3p0A1K0nAZR7bYoSvZvishMuNKXSW9lFeHccsHHhHrtPJixPYmh/rR4RaHCPDdEQ83aqPgkTlqlEHIhpuBcxXcOps0YMOecgIPvIPAsoK2HJdwM1q5nePq6RopZhONpKJaFxDoGNgVm84DRDVASGPd/w2EONNj3l3TQoFv//iEdfjZY8az1lUGZskMlkwKfZE/CZtBVWyVOW4dx+QMGaWcCYbhqV4pPtC8s0KP3Ogh2unfzDDIMBLIzc1cU/cf/kek+aliSV8ATiQbyz2E7LC3OI/OtdwX44pjyW7RPSfIocmnfzb4jQUkCZr6Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IEa87Lt7ObD098sM6/DEO5mzWrXvfwcbVbw5vvckikQ=; b=QxC+s060/S5p5kIDBO3mz9vL6+iGp8xHfF2dLyTcxe+zeoh1H4Ld9CZj9v6bhv97hZ+29vatddSDYP2GoXgSxzigMgXe3B/ANDpHPw6/GQWzv2tKBsB8Cyh/WknS51nJJ9UD8am3mrq1pultm8N22zcQiIC/x+/riCEAbZbhlWI= Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN7PR11MB2578.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:b2::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.23; Wed, 27 May 2020 20:37:21 +0000 Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d1c:98b:2131:d35%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.016; Wed, 27 May 2020 20:37:21 +0000 From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" To: Brian E Carpenter , "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only@ietf.org" CC: "dhcwg@ietf.org" , IPv6 Operations Thread-Topic: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 Thread-Index: AdYnlBw72h8m3/s6QES4usbyMd1QVwMxDHdAAACFQ4AAApxVAAAAbrqA Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 20:37:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.66] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 13bc9793-cc20-4201-17b4-08d8027dc151 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2578: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273; x-forefront-prvs: 04163EF38A x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ijlwl36/8X3P/cwe6iisl+XWFAd0/EySMHYSG1oHmQEmFkYzUvmEwL7fM/KnvKPFvgXMFbIvycJInJrHHxTb6BcXPbs/Pn2myqx5O/Tp0bVTmU0J3qTqkVxgjdai7FQ48YldECWq1Z/tawDPmYQeCNiC3hyg0oie8pusQhepd61tcjUlYdxbvYKwDHtaJUeTGJrIlKljWVR4NRunT7z2QRiSCz1+o2qOgenz0nTYTkDSD0OrLKujXFo3buQoQ7xANFLN3DPSzFH81fJOky1ohiltBGjAicvxeDnoTcZqbU6YlzH1FbT5E4T8TtDlitmMHe6AVe4K2PqaTaq2Ru9mMw== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(55016002)(86362001)(76116006)(2906002)(6506007)(53546011)(66946007)(66476007)(4326008)(66446008)(64756008)(7696005)(66556008)(83380400001)(33656002)(8676002)(186003)(26005)(110136005)(54906003)(478600001)(9686003)(316002)(71200400001)(8936002)(4744005)(5660300002)(52536014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 13bc9793-cc20-4201-17b4-08d8027dc151 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2020 20:37:20.7781 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Cvl+MX//k/6AGLz2hZe5AWifyhL1qE0EbaSlv5SCI2YRK/fkXmUtq6SrEkWcJOX6 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2578 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-v6only - Respond by 5/25/2020 X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 20:37:57 -0000 Q29vbC4gQW5kIHRoZW4gdGhlIHVzYWdlIGlzIGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCBhbmQgdGh1cyBub3QgYW4gaXNzdWUuIFRoYW5rcy4NCg0KLSBCZXJuaWUNCg0KLS0tLS1Pcmln aW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IEJyaWFuIEUgQ2FycGVudGVyIDxicmlhbi5lLmNhcnBl bnRlckBnbWFpbC5jb20+IA0KU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXkgMjcsIDIwMjAgNDoyNSBQTQ0K VG86IEJlcm5pZSBWb2x6ICh2b2x6KSA8dm9sekBjaXNjby5jb20+OyBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRoYy12 Nm9ubHlAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCkNjOiBkaGN3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgSVB2NiBPcGVyYXRpb25zIDx2Nm9w c0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbdjZvcHNdIFdHTEMgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZGhj LXY2b25seSAtIFJlc3BvbmQgYnkgNS8yNS8yMDIwDQoNCk9uIDI4LU1heS0yMCAwNzozNywgQmVy bmllIFZvbHogKHZvbHopIHdyb3RlOg0KLi4uDQo+ICAxLiDigJxCZWhhdmlvdXLigJ0gaXMgdXNl ZCB3aGVyZWFzIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIElFVEYgZ2VuZXJhbGx5IHVzZXMgQW1lcmljYW4gRW5nbGlz aCBzbyDigJxiZWhhdmlvcuKAnSB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlPw0KDQpBcyBmYXIg YXMgSSBrbm93LCB0aGUgUkZDIEVkaXRvciBhaW1zIGF0IGNvbnNpc3RlbmN5IHdpdGhpbiBhIGRv Y3VtZW50LCBzbyBlaXRoZXIgYWxsICJiZWhhdmlvdXIiIG9yIGFsbCAiYmVoYXZpb3IiIGlzIE9L LCBhbmQgdGhlIHNhbWUgZm9yIG90aGVyIHRyYW5zYXRsYW50aWMgc3BlbGxpbmcgcHJlZmVyZW5j ZXMuDQoNCiAgICAgQnJpYW4NCg0K From nobody Sun May 31 02:05:03 2020 Return-Path: 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 DEF0A3A1370 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 02:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no 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 SOjiPtDuRcdE for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 02:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tools.si6networks.com (v6toolkit.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E977B3A1372 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 02:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:2c02:ebaa:1390:c00f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:2c02:ebaa:1390:c00f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tools.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3A893FF91; Sun, 31 May 2020 11:04:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Fernando Gont To: Jen Linkova References: <202005251539.04PFd03X096978@svl-junos-d082.juniper.net> Cc: Ron Bonica , "v6ops@ietf.org" Message-ID: <62458b61-9ba3-0ec2-eea9-58db0782b03f@gont.com.ar> Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 06:04:36 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: v6ops discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 09:05:02 -0000 Jen/wg, I support publication of this document. Bellow you'll find my review: ** Technical: ** * Section 2.2 You might want to note how the "override" flag in the NA is set, and the state in which the NCE should be created. * Section 3.3 Might want to clarify which destination address to use? * Section 3.4: > > o If the address is in the Optimistic state the RS can not contain > SLLAO. As a result the router would only create a cache entry if > the solicited RAs is sent as as a unicast. Routers sending > solicited RAs as multicast would not create a new cache entry as > they do not need to send a unicast packet back to the host. Of the top of my head, I'm not sure if an RA sent to a multicast address can be a "solicited RA" (as in "having the 'solicited' flag set). Please double-check. ** Editorial: ** * Section 1: > This approach is perfectly suitable for host2host communications s/host2host/host-to-host/ * Section 1: > This approach is perfectly suitable for host2host communications > which are in most cases bi-directional and it could be expected that > if a host A has an ND cache entry for the host B IPv6 address, the > host B also has the corresponding ND entry for the host A address in > its cache. Insert commas after "communications", and "bi-directional". Remove "the" in "the host B also has" * Section 1: > However when a host communicates to off-link destinations > via its first-hop router that logic does not apply. Insert comma after "router". * Section 1: > A host joins the network and receives a Router Advertisement Add "(RA)", since you later use the acronym. Also expand "RS" later on in the text. * Section 1: > Neighbor Cache with the router link-local and link-layer > addresses. s/router/router's/ * Section 1: > Very common use case is a mobile Insert missing leading "A" ("A very common...") * Section 1: > the Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection [RFC4429] s/the// Add "(DAD)", since you later use the acronym. Possibly add comma after "[RFC4429]". * Section 1: > (if the device has been performing the ND process for the roiter > LLA) but there are no entries for the device GUA. s/roiter/router/ Maybe s/the ND process/address resolution/ * Section 1: > Most router implementations buffer only > one data packet while performing the neighbor discovery for the > packet destination address, Possibly s/the neighbor discovery/address resolution/ , since "neighbor discovery" encompasses many different functions. * Section 1: > 4. If the host sends multiple probes in parallel it would considered > all but one of them failed. s/considered/consider/ * Section 1: > porbes s/porbes/probes/ * Section 1: > router neighbor cache Maybe s/router/router's/ * Section 1: > starts using the new GUA previously unseen by the router, such as a s/the new GUA/a new GUA/ * Section 1: > or if the router Neighbor Cache has > been flushed. s/router/router's/ * Section 1: > While in dual-stack networks this problem might hidden by Happy > Eyeballs [RFC8305] it manifest quite clearly in IPv6-only s/might/might be/ s/manifest/manifests/ * Section 1.2: Not sure if this section is needed. Just introduce the acronyms the first time you use each term, and that's it. * Section 2.1: > o In case of duplicate addresses present in the network the proposed > solution MUST NOT override the existing entry. Add missing comma after "network" * Section 2.2: > summary the follwing changes to [RFC4861] are suggested: Fix typo. * Section 3.2: > required s/required/requires/ * Section 3: Thinking out loud: One might move this section (and subsections) to an Appendix? * Section 3.5: > might be still performing the DAD s/the// * Section 3.6: > 3.6. Initiating Hosts2Routers Communication s/Hosts2Routers/Host-to-Routers/ * Section 3.6: > The host may trigger the router to start the address resolution by s/the// Thanks! Cheers, Fernando On 25/5/20 12:51, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This message initiates a WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init. > > Please submit comments by June 8, 2020. > > > Fred and Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1