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

* 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 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 >

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

Bjørn Mork writes: > This list has this in the header: > > List-Id: IPv6 operators forum > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

>> 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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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