Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Fernando Gont]

On 1/4/20 14:16, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,


[...]


Even IETF discontinued recommending DHCPv6-PD for "inside a home network",
because it doesn't work.


Would you mind elaborating on this one?

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Fernando Gont]

On 1/4/20 09:12, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:

There are several reasons that people shout about DHCPv6:

...

- politics: probably the most contentious area. One well-known example
- is how ipv6 on cellular impacts carrier vs handset control
- politics. 3GPP specifies that the ppp context for tethering must
- support SLAAC and therefore it provides a /64 for LAN
- connectivity. This means that the handset applications have as much
- address space as they need.  The argument goes that if DHCPv6 were a
- viable option for this, then the mobile operators would effectively
- wrestle control of the applications running on the handset (and
- ultimately control of the handset capabilities itself away from the
- handset software vendors) by handing control of the number of
- available IPv6 addresses to the cellular operator.  This is, at least,
- the reason cited by the Android authors for the point-blank refusal to
- implement DHCPv6 in android (bug ID 32621).


We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not
just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses
as they want.


You mean e.g. support IA_PD at CPEs on the LAN side?

Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:05:04PM +0200, Ola Thoresen wrote:
> I also fail to see why the cost of implementing PD in a network would be 
> significantly higher than doing all the ND snoping and logging you would 
> need to track individual addresses - _especially_ in an enterprise network.

Try build it.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Ola Thoresen]

On 4/1/20 7:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote:


Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:53:02PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:

Lorenzo Colitti  writes:


I'm not sure that the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD
though.

Why don't you just try and see?  You have nothing to lose AFAICT.

I've said it on IETF discussions and will happily say it again - this
is a particular corner-case that might benefit developers running stacks
of VMs in VMs on their laptops, but I fail to see a real world argument
why this would be beneficial.



I really dont see this as "corner cases".  Maybe a few years ago, but in 
todays world, more and more apps are distributed as contianers and my 
guess is that we will see even more stuff like that in the future.


IF we could easily get prefixes assigned to "workstations" (or whatever 
we call them) I can also imagine that it will quickly be used by various 
kinds of sensors, "IoT"-devices etc. to build "personal area networks".  
Think stuff like your wireless headset, local file sharing between 
devices, personal ip-cameras and so on.  Lots of devices that either use 
USB or Bluetoth or other similar connections today could easily connect 
to one of your local PD-prefixes and benefit from a simpler and more 
robust connection over IP.


I also fail to see why the cost of implementing PD in a network would be 
significantly higher than doing all the ND snoping and logging you would 
need to track individual addresses - _especially_ in an enterprise network.



/Ola (T)

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:53:02PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Lorenzo Colitti  writes:
> 
> > I'm not sure that the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD
> > though.
> 
> Why don't you just try and see?  You have nothing to lose AFAICT.

I've said it on IETF discussions and will happily say it again - this
is a particular corner-case that might benefit developers running stacks
of VMs in VMs on their laptops, but I fail to see a real world argument
why this would be beneficial.

OTOH the cost to implement this on the network-side is significant.

Think "enterprise networks".  You have LANs, and members of those
networks.  Not "distribution machinery for arbitrary prefixes to be
doled out in places where you have no idea how many subnets of which
size you might need".

DHCPv6-PD has it's place in "connecting a client *network* to an 
internet provider (wired/wireless/LTE/whatever)" but I totally fail 
to see a positive benefit/cost analysis for anything else.

Even IETF discontinued recommending DHCPv6-PD for "inside a home network",
because it doesn't work.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Bjørn Mork]

Lorenzo Colitti  writes:

> I'm not sure that the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD
> though.

Why don't you just try and see?  You have nothing to lose AFAICT.


Bjørn

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[sthaug]

>> We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not
>> just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses
>> as they want.
> 
> DHCPv6 PD is one of the means suggested by RFC 7934, yes. I'm not sure that
> the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD though. The reason
> most often cited for wanting DHCPv6 is that it fits well with tracking
> practices and systems that are built to support on-request addressing and
> networks assigning individual IP address(es) to devices. DHCPv6 PD provides
> request-based addressing, but it wouldn't do much to interoperate with
> those tracking systems because they deal with addresses, not subnets. From
> that perspective, ND snooping might be more likely to interoperate well.

Well, I work for one othe ISPs who would *love* to use DHCPv6 PD. Yes,
we'd have to make some modest changes to systems to handle prefixes
instead of individual addresses. But we'd be happy to just track IPv6
prefixes and *not* have to track individual addresses.

Our estimates is that the work to incorporate such a change (handling
IPv6 prefixes) would be significantly less than doing ND snooping and
similar in all relevant boxes and systems. YMMV.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:12 PM  wrote:

> We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not
> just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses
> as they want.
>

DHCPv6 PD is one of the means suggested by RFC 7934, yes. I'm not sure that
the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD though. The reason
most often cited for wanting DHCPv6 is that it fits well with tracking
practices and systems that are built to support on-request addressing and
networks assigning individual IP address(es) to devices. DHCPv6 PD provides
request-based addressing, but it wouldn't do much to interoperate with
those tracking systems because they deal with addresses, not subnets. From
that perspective, ND snooping might be more likely to interoperate well.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Philip Homburg]

>We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not
>just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses
>as they want.

IA_PD 'works' (for small values of works) for hosts today.

The upstream interface of a CPE is defined as a host instead of a router.

The big gap in IA_PD is that it doesn't specify how routing is supposed to
work. This is fine if IA_PD happens between routers and all routers have a 
common routing protocol.

For IA_PD to hosts, including CPEs, there is a varity of hacks to install
the prefix in the FIB of the access router.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[sthaug]

> There are several reasons that people shout about DHCPv6:
...
> - politics: probably the most contentious area. One well-known example
> - is how ipv6 on cellular impacts carrier vs handset control
> - politics. 3GPP specifies that the ppp context for tethering must
> - support SLAAC and therefore it provides a /64 for LAN
> - connectivity. This means that the handset applications have as much
> - address space as they need.  The argument goes that if DHCPv6 were a
> - viable option for this, then the mobile operators would effectively
> - wrestle control of the applications running on the handset (and
> - ultimately control of the handset capabilities itself away from the
> - handset software vendors) by handing control of the number of
> - available IPv6 addresses to the cellular operator.  This is, at least,
> - the reason cited by the Android authors for the point-blank refusal to
> - implement DHCPv6 in android (bug ID 32621).

We are already 90% of the way here: Make IA_PD work for hosts, not
just for routers. That way Android handsets can have as many addresses
as they want.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

The problem is that you only realize about the DMARC problem is you "verify" 
your own emails when they come back from the list and you have configured the 
list to also send back the emails to you ...

Otherwise it passes unadvertised, but some people don't get emails from people 
that uses DMARC in strict mode, use gmail or yahoo, etc.

Not a complain, just to it is not "unadvertised".

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/4/20 12:47, "Daniel Roesen" 
 escribió:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Webmaster wrote:
> By the way ... I just realized that the list is not handling correctly
> DMARC users. So my own emails when they come back, go to the spam
> folder, which means they are going to the spam folder of many folks.

One could argue that this is the problem of the DMARC user, expecting
the world to adjust to their personal believe how to combat the
deficiencies of email.

But I don't. :)

FYI, you're the first to complain/note a DMARC issue with the lists I'm
hosting (with >10k subs), so doesn't seem to be a widespread problem
yet.

> This was a problem with IETF and RIRs exploders and I believe they
> applied some patch or mailman/pipermail upgrade to resolve it.

I'm working on upgrading Mailman in the coming weeks and will also
revisit DMARC and other stuff at that point.


Best regards,
Daniel

PS: btw, you're posting as "webmaster@" - rly?

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

RE: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Robert Webb]

Since this has turned into a thread complaining about following rules, how 
about taking the discussion about email somewhere more appropriate, 
https://www.mailop.org/, and stay on topic about IPv6 on an IPv6 mail list!

Thanks...

> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+rwebb=ropeguru@lists.cluenet.de  bounces+rwebb=ropeguru@lists.cluenet.de> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 7:08 AM
> To: Daniel Roesen ; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?
> 
> The problem is that you only realize about the DMARC problem is you
> "verify" your own emails when they come back from the list and you have
> configured the list to also send back the emails to you ...
> 
> Otherwise it passes unadvertised, but some people don't get emails from
> people that uses DMARC in strict mode, use gmail or yahoo, etc.
> 
> Not a complain, just to it is not "unadvertised".
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 1/4/20 12:47, "Daniel Roesen"  bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel...@lists.cluenet.de en nombre de
> d...@cluenet.de> escribió:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Webmaster wrote:
> > By the way ... I just realized that the list is not handling correctly
> > DMARC users. So my own emails when they come back, go to the spam
> > folder, which means they are going to the spam folder of many folks.
> 
> One could argue that this is the problem of the DMARC user, expecting
> the world to adjust to their personal believe how to combat the
> deficiencies of email.
> 
> But I don't. :)
> 
> FYI, you're the first to complain/note a DMARC issue with the lists I'm
> hosting (with >10k subs), so doesn't seem to be a widespread problem
> yet.
> 
> > This was a problem with IETF and RIRs exploders and I believe they
> > applied some patch or mailman/pipermail upgrade to resolve it.
> 
> I'm working on upgrading Mailman in the coming weeks and will also
> revisit DMARC and other stuff at that point.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Daniel
> 
> PS: btw, you're posting as "webmaster@" - rly?
> 
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 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
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
> individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to
> inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Daniel Roesen]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:56:03AM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
> people can't/won't read headers. Most mail clients hide them pretty
> well. I guess that most people don't even konw they are there.

Correct, but appending footers is a problem with cryptographic
signatures, so a pretty much no-go too.

There is the the issue of email address ownership changing to
"non-enlightened" folks, as well as malware out there actually able to
perform double opt-in subscription to Mailman lists via email. I've seen
it happen. So there ARE unsuspecting, innocent people ending up
subscribed here who have ZERO idea how they got here, nor how they get
off the list.

I have to clue myself up how other list ops deal with that.
But I see that there is certainly no "magic bullet" that doesn't have
severe drawbacks. Email is becoming more and more unusable due to the
defensive measures being taken against spam, phishing and other
malicious use of email.

On a side note to all: I would prefer not to prolong this discussion
here so much as it's quite off-topic. At minimum open a new thread (a
new thread, not just change subject) so people have a chance to filter.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Webmaster]

By the way ... I just realized that the list is not handling correctly DMARC 
users. So my own emails when they come back, go to the spam folder, which means 
they are going to the spam folder of many folks.

This was a problem with IETF and RIRs exploders and I believe they applied some 
patch or mailman/pipermail upgrade to resolve it.

El 1/4/20 9:59, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" 
 escribió:

Well, we can't know probably, but he must be able to unsubscribe by himself 
anyway ...

It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means having 
an explicit unsubscription link in the footer, which will also facilitate some 
people to unsubscribe (yes we know, even having that footer, some people is not 
"able" to read it).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/4/20 9:46, "Daniel Roesen" 
 escribió:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:29:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the 
list.

Not necessarily. Especially with the big freemailers, email accounts
sometimes change owners... where old owner didn't unsub from all mailing
lists, especially the low volume ones.

I've taken care of that.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.







**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Daniel Roesen]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Webmaster wrote:
> By the way ... I just realized that the list is not handling correctly
> DMARC users. So my own emails when they come back, go to the spam
> folder, which means they are going to the spam folder of many folks.

One could argue that this is the problem of the DMARC user, expecting
the world to adjust to their personal believe how to combat the
deficiencies of email.

But I don't. :)

FYI, you're the first to complain/note a DMARC issue with the lists I'm
hosting (with >10k subs), so doesn't seem to be a widespread problem
yet.

> This was a problem with IETF and RIRs exploders and I believe they
> applied some patch or mailman/pipermail upgrade to resolve it.

I'm working on upgrading Mailman in the coming weeks and will also
revisit DMARC and other stuff at that point.


Best regards,
Daniel

PS: btw, you're posting as "webmaster@" - rly?

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

Re: GDPR issues of mailing lists ? - Was: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Mohácsi János]

Sorry. RFC8058 and/or RFC 2369

On 2020. 04. 01. 10:50, Janos Mohacsi wrote:

Hi Jordi,

In  my opinion to adhere the GDPR regulations each mailing list (maybe 
mailing list operator) should have a data management policy and implement some 
simple rules. The data management policy  should be made available during the 
subscription. If anything changes in the regulation or in the policy all 
subscribed users should be notified and allow them to unsubscribe. 
Unsubscription can be done with any mail receiving from the particular mailing 
list  since the modern mailing list managers follow the RFC 8058 


Regards,
Janos Mohacsi

On 2020. 04. 01. 10:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Tore,

I've taken a quick look, because I don't know it by memory, but:

1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a confirmation 
from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
authorization. I'm not sure if that was done for this list. I believe this is 
art. 39 and some further text in the following articles.

2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clearly 
said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to.

https://gdpr-info.eu/

I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of the 
list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 1/4/20 10:11, "Tore Anderson" 

 escribió:

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means 
having an explicit unsubscription link in the footer

Which GDPR article requires that, exactly?

Tore




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





--
János Mohácsi
International R Officer
GÉANT activity coordinator in Hungary, EOSC GB member

T: +36 30 555 7599
mohacsi.ja...@kifu.gov.hu

Kormányzati Informatikai Fejlesztési Ügynökség

--
János Mohácsi
International R Officer
GÉANT activity coordinator in Hungary, EOSC GB member

T: +36 30 555 7599
mohacsi.ja...@kifu.gov.hu

Kormányzati Informatikai Fejlesztési Ügynökség



Ezen üzenet és annak bármely csatolt anyaga bizalmas, jogi védelem alatt áll, a 
nyilvános közléstől védett. Az üzenetet kizárólag a címzett, illetve az általa 
meghatalmazottak használhatják fel. Ha Ön nem az üzenet címzettje, úgy kérjük, 
hogy telefonon, vagy e-mail-ben értesítse erről az üzenet küldőjét és törölje 
az üzenetet, valamint annak összes csatolt mellékletét a rendszeréből. Ha Ön 
nem az üzenet címzettje, abban az esetben tilos az üzenetet vagy annak bármely 
csatolt mellékletét lemásolnia, elmentenie, az üzenet tartalmát bárkivel 
közölnie vagy azzal visszaélnie.

This message and any attachment are confidential and are legally privileged. It 
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any 
attachment from your system. Please note that any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted 
with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the recipient designated above by 
the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited.

GDPR issues of mailing lists ? - Was: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Mohácsi János]

Hi Jordi,

In  my opinion to adhere the GDPR regulations each mailing list (maybe 
mailing list operator) should have a data management policy and implement some 
simple rules. The data management policy  should be made available during the 
subscription. If anything changes in the regulation or in the policy all 
subscribed users should be notified and allow them to unsubscribe. 
Unsubscription can be done with any mail receiving from the particular mailing 
list  since the modern mailing list managers follow the RFC 8058 


Regards,
Janos Mohacsi

On 2020. 04. 01. 10:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Tore,

I've taken a quick look, because I don't know it by memory, but:

1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a confirmation 
from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
authorization. I'm not sure if that was done for this list. I believe this is 
art. 39 and some further text in the following articles.

2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clearly 
said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to.

https://gdpr-info.eu/

I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of the 
list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 1/4/20 10:11, "Tore Anderson" 

 escribió:

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means 
having an explicit unsubscription link in the footer

Which GDPR article requires that, exactly?

Tore




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





--
János Mohácsi
International R Officer
GÉANT activity coordinator in Hungary, EOSC GB member

T: +36 30 555 7599
mohacsi.ja...@kifu.gov.hu

Kormányzati Informatikai Fejlesztési Ügynökség



Ezen üzenet és annak bármely csatolt anyaga bizalmas, jogi védelem alatt áll, a 
nyilvános közléstől védett. Az üzenetet kizárólag a címzett, illetve az általa 
meghatalmazottak használhatják fel. Ha Ön nem az üzenet címzettje, úgy kérjük, 
hogy telefonon, vagy e-mail-ben értesítse erről az üzenet küldőjét és törölje 
az üzenetet, valamint annak összes csatolt mellékletét a rendszeréből. Ha Ön 
nem az üzenet címzettje, abban az esetben tilos az üzenetet vagy annak bármely 
csatolt mellékletét lemásolnia, elmentenie, az üzenet tartalmát bárkivel 
közölnie vagy azzal visszaélnie.

This message and any attachment are confidential and are legally privileged. It 
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any 
attachment from your system. Please note that any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted 
with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the recipient designated above by 
the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

El 1/4/20 10:55, "Tore Anderson" 
 escribió:

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> I don't know it by memory

Huh. In that case, what do you base your claims about what the GDPR 
requires on, exactly?

> 1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a 
confirmation from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
authorization.

Not true.

Assuming the lawful grounds for processing is «consent» pursuant to article 
6(1)(a) GDPR, and consent was given prior to 25th of May 2018 in a way that 
satisfies the requirements for consent pursuant to article 7 GDPR, then there 
is no need to ask the data subject to «re-confirm».

The process of subscribing to a mailing list does to me seem to constitute 
valid consent.

It would also be possible to instead the lawful grounds «necessary for the 
performance of a contract» pursuant to article 6(1)(b) GDPR, in which case 
valid consent is not required.

[Jordi] This is right *if* the list owner can demonstrate all the 
subscriptions. We don't know that.

The lack of a privacy statement is likely a bigger problem as far as GDPR 
compliance is concerned.


[Jordi] Agree, and my email intent was not to raise just if the list follows 
this or that GDPR article, but in general.


> 2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably 
clearly said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how 
to.

It is most definitively not mentioned in the article 59 GDPR because that 
article about annual activity reports issued by the supervisory authorities, so 
that one totally irrelevant here.

You are right that there is a right to object (article 21 GDPR). However 
that has absolutely nothing to say about mailing list footers either.

Tore




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: GDPR issues of mailing lists ? - Was: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Exactly, and I don’t think this data management policy, and GDPR compliance has 
been published in the list, and is available in the list web site when you 
register, etc.

 

The RFC is good, but GDPR is “agnostic” of RFCs … The DPA can say, even if you 
are RFC-folks, the list is open for any other folks to subscribe, and they 
don’t need to know that the list unsubscribe info is in the header, they may 
not even know how to see the header …

 

Believe me, I got similar resposes from the DPAs around the EU. 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 1/4/20 10:50, "Mohácsi János"  escribió:

 

Hi Jordi, 

In  my opinion to adhere the GDPR regulations each mailing list (maybe 
mailing list operator) should have a data management policy and implement some 
simple rules. The data management policy  should be made available during the 
subscription. If anything changes in the regulation or in the policy all 
subscribed users should be notified and allow them to unsubscribe. 
Unsubscription can be done with any mail receiving from the particular mailing 
list  since the modern mailing list managers follow the RFC 8058 

Regards, 

Janos Mohacsi 

 

On 2020. 04. 01. 10:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Tore,
 
I've taken a quick look, because I don't know it by memory, but:
 
1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a confirmation 
from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
authorization. I'm not sure if that was done for this list. I believe this is 
art. 39 and some further text in the following articles.
 
2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clearly 
said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to.
 
https://gdpr-info.eu/
 
I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of the 
list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 
 
El 1/4/20 10:11, "Tore Anderson" 
 escribió:
 
    * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    
> It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means 
having an explicit unsubscription link in the footer
    
Which GDPR article requires that, exactly?
    
Tore
    
 
 
 
**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
 
 
 
-- 
János Mohácsi
International R Officer
GÉANT activity coordinator in Hungary, EOSC GB member   
 
T: +36 30 555 7599
mohacsi.ja...@kifu.gov.hu
 
Kormányzati Informatikai Fejlesztési Ügynökség
 


Ezen üzenet és annak bármely csatolt anyaga bizalmas, jogi védelem alatt áll, a 
nyilvános közléstől védett. Az üzenetet kizárólag a címzett, illetve az általa 
meghatalmazottak használhatják fel. Ha Ön nem az üzenet címzettje, úgy kérjük, 
hogy telefonon, vagy e-mail-ben értesítse erről az üzenet küldőjét és törölje 
az üzenetet, valamint annak összes csatolt mellékletét a rendszeréből. Ha Ön 
nem az üzenet címzettje, abban az esetben tilos az üzenetet vagy annak bármely 
csatolt mellékletét lemásolnia, elmentenie, az üzenet tartalmát bárkivel 
közölnie vagy azzal visszaélnie.

This message and any attachment are confidential and are legally privileged. It 
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any 
attachment from your system. Please note that any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted 
with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the recipient designated above by 
the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited.




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly 

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I agree that it is sufficient for smart people, but I'm not sure if in case 
somebody is not smart and make a complain to the DPA, they will agree being 
sufficient.

I'm just fine either way, just making sure that the list responsible avoids 
troubles because non-smart (not to say stupid) people.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/4/20 10:43, "Bjørn Mork" 
 escribió:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  writes:

> 2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably 
clear=
> ly said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how 
to=
> .
>
> https://gdpr-info.eu/
>
> I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of 
the=
>  list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.


This list has this in the header:

List-Id: IPv6 operators forum 
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,



This is obviously more than sufficient.

There is not need to duplicate this in the footer to compensate for
buggy and user unfriendly email clients


Bjørn




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:56:55AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> The rest of us we can live just fine with SLAAC+DHCPv6. Just remember
> that it is so much better than SLAAC+DHCPv6+whatever.

Maybe it's time for a unified SLAAC+DHCPv6 standard!  Much better than
two competing standards!

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: GDPR issues of mailing lists ? - Was: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:56:09AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> The RFC is good, but GDPR is ???agnostic??? of RFCs ??? The DPA can say, even 
> if you are RFC-folks, the list is open for any other folks to subscribe, and 
> they don???t need to know that the list unsubscribe info is in the header, 
> they may not even know how to see the header ???

This domain is called "cluenet.de", it implies "can quote, and understands
e-mail".  No?

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Bjørn Mork]

Brian E Carpenter  writes:
> On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> Operating two address assignment protocols is just silly.
>> 
>> At my house, I don't even bother with DHCPv6 for DNS. I just use the
>> IPv4 ones and let SLAAC assign IPv6 addresses to my devices. Just about
>> done with the purist madness around this.
>
> There's purism (which I don't understand) and there's also historical
> baggage that is incredibly hard to get rid of. As I have reminded from
> time to time, SLAAC was designed and implemented for IPv6 *before* DHCP
> became a proven technology for IPv4 (i.e. many of us were still running
> around manually assigning IPv4 addresses to newly installed Suns and
> NCDs and the like). DHCPv6 was an afterthought.

Thanks!  Knowing history is important when trying to understand.

> Unfortunately, the purism has made it impossible to have a rational
> discussion about engineering our way out of this historical duplication.

Is there a way out?  Which doesn't involve time travel?

The obviously solution to the "too many protocols" problem is fewer
protocols.  But we cannot really remove anything, can we?  Only add.

So how do we get out of this? I vote for "accept that we have two
protocols, and stop whining".

Of course, you can do whatever you want in your home or anywhere else
where you manage both ends. And you can be arrogant and ignore one of
the protocols if you're big enough. You probably want to look up how
history has judged technical arrogance, though.

The rest of us we can live just fine with SLAAC+DHCPv6. Just remember
that it is so much better than SLAAC+DHCPv6+whatever.



Bjørn

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Jens Link]

Bjørn Mork  writes:

> This list has this in the header:
>
> List-Id: IPv6 operators forum 
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
>   
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
>   
>
>
> This is obviously more than sufficient.

people can't/won't read headers. Most mail clients hide them pretty
well. I guess that most people don't even konw they are there.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  | 

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Tore Anderson]

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> I don't know it by memory

Huh. In that case, what do you base your claims about what the GDPR requires 
on, exactly?

> 1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a confirmation 
> from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
> authorization.

Not true.

Assuming the lawful grounds for processing is «consent» pursuant to article 
6(1)(a) GDPR, and consent was given prior to 25th of May 2018 in a way that 
satisfies the requirements for consent pursuant to article 7 GDPR, then there 
is no need to ask the data subject to «re-confirm».

The process of subscribing to a mailing list does to me seem to constitute 
valid consent.

It would also be possible to instead the lawful grounds «necessary for the 
performance of a contract» pursuant to article 6(1)(b) GDPR, in which case 
valid consent is not required.

The lack of a privacy statement is likely a bigger problem as far as GDPR 
compliance is concerned.

> 2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clearly 
> said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to.

It is most definitively not mentioned in the article 59 GDPR because that 
article about annual activity reports issued by the supervisory authorities, so 
that one totally irrelevant here.

You are right that there is a right to object (article 21 GDPR). However that 
has absolutely nothing to say about mailing list footers either.

Tore

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Tore,

I've taken a quick look, because I don't know it by memory, but:

1) Before 25 May 2018, every EU citizen or resident must get a confirmation 
from any database holder with his personal data, to re-confirm the 
authorization. I'm not sure if that was done for this list. I believe this is 
art. 39 and some further text in the following articles.

2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clearly 
said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to.

https://gdpr-info.eu/

I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of the 
list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/4/20 10:11, "Tore Anderson" 
 escribió:

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means 
having an explicit unsubscription link in the footer

Which GDPR article requires that, exactly?

Tore




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Bjørn Mork]

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  writes:

> 2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clear=
> ly said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to=
> .
>
> https://gdpr-info.eu/
>
> I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of the=
>  list to comply with GDPR, to avoid any DPA fine.


This list has this in the header:

List-Id: IPv6 operators forum 
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,



This is obviously more than sufficient.

There is not need to duplicate this in the footer to compensate for
buggy and user unfriendly email clients


Bjørn

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Well, we can't know probably, but he must be able to unsubscribe by himself 
anyway ...

It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means having an 
explicit unsubscription link in the footer, which will also facilitate some 
people to unsubscribe (yes we know, even having that footer, some people is not 
"able" to read it).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/4/20 9:46, "Daniel Roesen" 
 escribió:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:29:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the list.

Not necessarily. Especially with the big freemailers, email accounts
sometimes change owners... where old owner didn't unsub from all mailing
lists, especially the low volume ones.

I've taken care of that.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0




**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Tore Anderson]

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

> It is true however, that this list must follow GDPR, and this means having an 
> explicit unsubscription link in the footer

Which GDPR article requires that, exactly?

Tore

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Daniel Roesen]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:29:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the list.

Not necessarily. Especially with the big freemailers, email accounts
sometimes change owners... where old owner didn't unsub from all mailing
lists, especially the low volume ones.

I've taken care of that.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the list.

 

If you subscribed to the list, you know how to unsubscribe.

 

If you don’t know it, you should be smart enough to look into the email header 
and you will find how to do it.

 

Just in case you don’t know how to do it, here is it for you:

 

List-Unsubscribe: ,

    

 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 1/4/20 6:08, "Sunita Badiga" 
 escribió:

 

STOP FUCKING EMAILING ME 

 

UNSUBSCRIBE



On Mar 31, 2020, at 8:35 PM, james machado  wrote:

 

The real problem is there are distinct use cases for both SLAAC and DHCPv6 and 
the people in charge of DHCPv6 keep screwing up.  It should be possible to run 
either SLAAC/RA or DHCPv6 and have each offering provide the required 
information without having to run additional services just to get basic feature 
parity to IPv4.  This is slowing implementation in enterprise networks.

 

james

 

 

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:24 PM Brian E Carpenter  
wrote:

On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 
> 
> On 31/Mar/20 12:09, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> 
>> Note that there have been multiple requests for DHCPv6 to do this but
>> every attempt has been shot down.
> 
> Yep - thankfully, we have an option.
> 
> Operating two address assignment protocols is just silly.
> 
> At my house, I don't even bother with DHCPv6 for DNS. I just use the
> IPv4 ones and let SLAAC assign IPv6 addresses to my devices. Just about
> done with the purist madness around this.

There's purism (which I don't understand) and there's also historical
baggage that is incredibly hard to get rid of. As I have reminded from
time to time, SLAAC was designed and implemented for IPv6 *before* DHCP
became a proven technology for IPv4 (i.e. many of us were still running
around manually assigning IPv4 addresses to newly installed Suns and
NCDs and the like). DHCPv6 was an afterthought.

Unfortunately, the purism has made it impossible to have a rational
discussion about engineering our way out of this historical duplication.

On 01-Apr-20 05:01, Gert Doering wrote:

...
> As soon as you have a larger routed network, mDNS falls short, and 
> (unless you have a windows domain) there are no existing mechanisms
> to put a SLAAC v6 address into DNS...

I think there's no *deployed* mechanism. DynDNS is said to work in the
lab. There's also some hope that DNS-SD will alleviate this problem, 
but only if it gets deployed.

> Yes, thanks, IETF.  Well done.

It's not because nobody has tried. But the bridge between theory and
operations seems to be hard to cross.

On 01-Apr-20 07:21, James R Cutler wrote:

...
> Wouldn’t it be more cost effect in the long term to simply make SLAAC and 
> DHCPv6 cooperative and complementary attributes of end-to-end networking? 

Well, duh. What we need is more people with real operational smarts
able to spend a lot of time and patience in the IETF. Yes, I know
why that is hard. (I had operation smarts once; no longer.) But that
is the only way we we can get a pragmatic approach into RFC text.

Don't worry about the travel budget, because the IETF is going to
have to do much more of its work remotely for the next couple of years
anyway. But the time and patience investment is substantial.

Stay well,
   Brian Carpenter



 



**
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 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further 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 are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:11:30AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:03 AM Gert Doering  wrote:
> 
> > (What they *want* is "IPAM shows what IPv6 address is in use on which
> > device in the network", which DHCPv6 would do nicely, including
> > static assignments via DHCP reservations - while everything else
> > relies on "IPv6/MAC ND logging on the router" or other disintegrated
> > fumbling...)
> 
> Gert, have you asked why the solutions listed in Enno's blog post
> 
> earlier in this thread don't work for them? Specifically, the router-based
> IP snooping and NDP monitoring features in switch platforms? Is it just
> that support for these features is patchy, and existing IPAMs do not
> support them? 

Mostly this, plus control / reservations ("this machine is supposed to 
get *that* address").

> Or is there some deeper problem? What can we do to make this
> better? Yes, using IA_NA would address this particular need, but it has
> disadvantages compared to SLAAC as well.

You could just stop being the ugly kid that does not want to play with
the others.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature