IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Townsley.net" <mark@townsley.net> Fri, 10 October 2014 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B6C1ACCFB for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 1FxM--j6yv2H for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34A231ACC83 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so1880057wiv.17 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=UI30ckdy7orkVsJRrZ8cLRLO6LykTb0A93DW4OHdDzY=; b=BQl0nNEUksVIz6r8fJYTzUwgEusX2O+m16qxGPRMhroEmc8LQPZw+5IaoLwgRaJ+Jj IHYBHVqGmgzUsfFeQlSOMZyJ6ETODIsapC/jY1KeFEHZRi3kvX06mP2pUwsxswSoqcZo dbHnzXVo0i2HuUozOi7OAAM90lK3QHxuYVa5vDd50yO7pUYnBmbWUCStb5EzXDsVPfAo gdUcb4gGEEATAbXkGrpally/0hbJGmY4hGqjCihgvnTph9P2RmcdPUiWF7h+XGesWwOt AjYCYRm8UCO06rmISgxlB/xJa1J4UvP6Q7bv4LnCOff0mA8Vdxg7IkTcEZiYAbeUCQeL yoAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmztu3u9NIVuz2ncVpA4EFwAg335/VKTBPkOFEO3l68XOXFOiPsIL+WsSmY06UQWdcKiC2u
X-Received: by 10.180.107.42 with SMTP id gz10mr4484756wib.67.1412944998784; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.38] (AMontsouris-654-1-51-143.w90-2.abo.wanadoo.fr. [90.2.178.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey6sm2521799wib.16.2014.10.10.05.43.17 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
References: <A0C73AEC-6D0F-498B-9BDD-D6AF91202CCB@darou.fr> <54350D62.5050706@gmail.com> <048F40EB-A1D5-4D70-986B-9DDE55FF7C22@darou.fr> <FAFE72E2-04EC-4B27-BE1F-6E2F9F7F7A1C@employees.org> <37213B35-CAE1-4AF7-B94D-2B5EAD1C4A39@darou.fr> <5308B561-200A-455C-B2E9-4B4824ED2A1D@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|2f5d8f14bb6cf818659db375e4a75ba0q97FLf03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5308B561-200A-455C-B2E9-4B4824ED2A1D@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5435D845.9030108@gmail.com> <AE46801C-D3EA-436A-9894-CCF9B9E46A5D@townsley.net> <A50A4BEF-B267-4BFF-8DDE-297D03A16DBC@darou.fr> <0D6BC65B-CD29-4C90-8787-365C79542DDC@employees.org> <C6EA0921-F56B-4F5B-AF22-75D90496D93F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|0bf2a71c0149ccab46ab7b399538a486q98KN403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C6EA0921-F56B-4F5B-AF22-75D90496D93F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|0bf2a71c0149ccab46ab7b399538a486q98KN403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C6EA0921-F56B-4F5B-AF22-75D90496D93F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <842E6585-18FF-4286-8C6F-C683500D47FC@townsley.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12A405)
From: "Townsley.net" <mark@townsley.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:43:18 +0200
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/z93-HPYqyLkyEltMw-C42tk_eiM
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:43:22 -0000


> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>> it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC.
>> 
>> protocol design is politics. we want to make it clear to the address delegation authorities that not delegating a large enough address block will lead to breakage.
>> 
>> in my view, if we let this principle slide, then the risk isn't that the delegations are /80s, but that they will be /128s. and you're back to IPv6 NAT anyhow.
> 
> So - provocative question - should this draft be Experimental in status instead if it’s diving below /64 boundary?

No. I think you are putting way too much weight on an informational document here. 

- Mark

> 
> Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email