Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison

Thanks for updating.

Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I’m proposing this change then.
>
> 1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
> prefixes of length 64 first.
> 2. I’m adding a reference to 6man-why64.
>
> When the algorithm decides to make a new assignment, it first needs
>     to specify the desired size of the assigned prefix.  Although this
>     algorithm intends to remain generic, it was observed in
>     [I-D.ietf-6man-why64] that hosts may malfunction when the prefix
>     length is not 64.  Therefore, prefixes of length 64 are RECOMMENDED.

With this text above, operators will be encouraged to read and give /64 
to end user sites.

Alex

>     The following table MAY be used as default values, where X is the
>     length of the delegated prefix.
>
>     If X <= 64:  Prefix length = 64
>
> ….
>
> Processes proposed in the appendix are optional.
> Our implementation supports some part of it, and it works fine in our
> test-cases.
> I’d rather have a /80 than no connectivity at all (And it just works.).
> IMO, why64 is way too pessimistic on the current implementation state
> and even more when it comes to the progress implementations will do in
> the coming years.
>
> And we either do that or let people do NAT66. ;)
>
>
> Is it OK for you Ole ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Pierre
>
> Le 9 oct. 2014 à 07:25, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net
> <mailto:mark@townsley.net>> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/10/2014 03:21, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>>> On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr
>>>>> <mailto:pierre.pfister@darou.fr>> wrote:
>>>>> Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in
>>>>> situations where they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily
>>>>> prevent a link from being configured if we actually can configure it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If MUSTs are the solution, then I would rather see a ‘ISP MUST
>>>>> provide a /56 to customers’ than ‘Homenet MUST brake when the
>>>>> provided prefix is not big enough’.
>>>>
>>>> But this is what the homenet arch text says in Section 3.4.1:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-17#section-3.4.1
>>>>
>>>> i.e. don’t go longer than /64, and ISPs should provide enough prefixes.
>>>>
>>>> The why64 text is very relevant here.
>>>
>>> And could be added as a reference. It's already in IESG Evaluation
>>> (with one open issue that was just flagged).
>>
>> Informative reference, as we don't want to create a downref over this.
>>
>>>
>>> Certainly the mechanisms should support any prefix length,
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>> but
>>> the reality remains that only /64 subnets work properly in all
>>> circumstances today.
>>>
>>>   Brian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homenet mailing list
>>> homenet@ietf.org <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>