IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] [Int-area] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 13 November 2021 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2F93A0970; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:48:35 -0800 (PST)
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 CYqModi66aPp; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC643A096E; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (cpe788a207f397a-cmbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FCB61F47B; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:48:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id F135A1A0E0D; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:48:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Adnan Rashid <adnanrashidpk@gmail.com>, int-area@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAGm_171mG+jRWf_rbY=eWV9hMbcZaht5WAajQ2+b21hfwSJFCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b9d172392013f578cdbd8e7120f6154e.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <BY3PR13MB47870F8078E156139DE953769ABC9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <16151.1634581572@localhost> <BY3PR13MB4787D81E9B56FBBEA62EA28A9ABC9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB4787BBE8A65861E0927E615C9A919@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <5CB1DC41-6BB9-4251-A080-207120F0311E@cisco.com> <BY3PR13MB47875C6A873BBA1FDD9F9E9F9A929@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CACQW0EovGkJFiiN29Y3yadVQiXLyjHu6jsFJWYvZv+Rwu7JSqg@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB4787C4DF1D74A7BD79995BD39A939@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CABOxzu3nFw1AxCiYv1ao2Dui_JgPrQK6My4xFWjiUm+_fMGOKQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB478705606B1A60564D39435F9A939@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAF18ct6UZ4=gtOsCbT13mYWs0tSPtnfu=sDUixyFDKwbVMivHw@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB478709FA6EA0D000CD0820C19A949@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAGm_171mG+jRWf_rbY=eWV9hMbcZaht5WAajQ2+b21hfwSJFCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Adnan Rashid <adnanrashidpk@gmail.com> message dated "Fri, 12 Nov 2021 01:06:54 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:48:25 -0500
Message-ID: <24180.1636847305@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/bZvEM4TpJ1z8oUgnOfBx-9U6RTI>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [Int-area] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:48:36 -0000

While not really a supporter of the scheme, let me ask:

Adnan Rashid <adnanrashidpk@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Consider if you have multi tenant network, then will your scheme work?

Please if you could explain what a multi-tenant network is in this context.
What is the trust relationship between the tenants and the operator?

Who is bringing the connectivity?  Who is providing the address space?
Do you expect each tenant to bring their own IPv6 prefix?
Consider BCP38.

    > If yes then how can node A from Service Provider-A can communicate with
    > node B from Service Provider-B and both are under the same border
    > router or edge node?

I think that it is okay if it doesn't work for mixed prefixes from multiple
providers.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email