Re: [addr-select-dt] Proposed default policy table

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Tue, 13 July 2010 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E443A69AE for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.939
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-eiAt-AOLm3 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.tndh.net (static-66-15-163-216.bdsl.verizon.net [66.15.163.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF1C3A6B52 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.tndh.net ([192.168.123.10] helo=eagle) by smtp.tndh.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>) id 1OYkCu-000FF6-LP; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:28:06 -0700
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Aleksi Suhonen'" <Aleksi.Suhonen@tut.fi>, <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>
References: <0f4301cb1ec0$297b4650$7c71d2f0$@com> <4C3A5931.40709@tut.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4C3A5931.40709@tut.fi>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <032f01cb22b9$1b2b7c80$51827580$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcshVCasksL9BALPQ/uAriQ65V2UwQBZDatg
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] Proposed default policy table
X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team <addr-select-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/addr-select-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:addr-select-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:28:01 -0000

I have no problem with leaving more space, I just didn't want to take people
too far from what existed... ;)

I don't believe we are actually deprecating 3ffe::, just operationally
removing it from use at this time. It was never defined with a specific
functionality in the stack, so it should not get downgraded unnecessarily.
Due to the explicit 2000::/3 not covering it, 3ffe:: will fall into
'default', so it does get a lower preference indirectly.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: addr-select-dt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:addr-select-dt-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aleksi Suhonen
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:52 PM
> To: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] Proposed default policy table
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Tony wrote:
> > I suggest leaving 10, 40,&  80 in the precedence so people can move
> IPv4 or
> > ULA around without feeling the need to rewrite the other labels (they
> don't
> > have to, but an obvious hole to park it in reduces confusion).
> 
> The number of bits in the precedence value has not been defined, but I
> understand that most implementations use at least 32 bits anyway. I
> would like to see the default precedence values multiplied by 100 to
> leave more room for algorithmically generated entries and manual
> tinkering.
> 
> There are only 4 values available between fc00::/8 and fd00::/8 for
> example. Those could be easily consumed after a couple of corporate
> fusions.
> 
> I guess the idea has been that local administration can override all
> values to their liking. However, my understanding of the best practises
> for system and network administration is that the defaults are changed
> as little as possible. And the defaults should preferably "shine
> through" from under local modifications. This means that when the
> defaults are changed due to some software update, they might adversely
> interfere with the local changes.
> 
> I don't mind it if the default precedences are multiplied by even more
> than a hundred, I just feel it is important that there should be more
> space between the default values.
> 
> Tony Hain also wrote:
>  > Precedence  Label  Prefix
>  > ----------  -----  --------------------------------
>   ...
>  >          1      6  fec0::/16
> 
> Aren't we removing site local completely while we're at it? Or if it
> should be kept around, then why not add 3ffe::/16 too for the same
> reason?
> 
> --
> 	Aleksi Suhonen
> 	Department of Communications Engineering
> 	Tampere University of Technology
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> addr-select-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt