IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AD7129676; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2oKz1aVNXZhX; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x242.google.com (mail-wr0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56292129673; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x242.google.com with SMTP id o22so807465wro.3; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=FZ0baErIUGCekm4au6TcF8NiTjxl7cwQFZFrCSiS+o0=; b=bLUtSwHCkR/C+pOT0TdkdT88855Ohs1Nc5ba2aVJw/Mxv8ga3p+qhHfUod3i5I91gM a8pWD51f71oF3R+JtfrHLVDhc74WCXuTpyHk8qB1usLFpUINMhH7lMBVRedN9HqiJSdz wT3zmqZdsxU8wgliw/iMLaiU3dTIiGN8RZsEMKufQNfQZFUxL5A5ihQ/F2BOWa4E63+o PJIQka9COtx0Mq6wAXydkzYETZpZmoN28ZpCM4eiwpjyco/kmYM9kwRhSmicS2d7HKo5 Tu8DOnc2TPziOwC2JjWn/lNvRVlIC37peHBbq8WADINICukHsRfhgAebnrPuHHiVKOUf /SwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=FZ0baErIUGCekm4au6TcF8NiTjxl7cwQFZFrCSiS+o0=; b=VZMaSKDKRShZqogq1pMQMxkDD3WZxbmhygViSCKLZ4/Zg3BCPGPEF+zll+lnntT8y+ IkMzKDBVgTKiAK8gVra5AKaSlUNRSfHezoUfhrPhvhQSH8ECv0ds/232wjOOmxlFQ224 wevxt5806GlhuhP/c/jSKWb6eKA40oZFugY9fivy3ZYj1CjIAQtt2sXww1bt1yeUG1Wc /Opyu4tuyGuMBQejJJRnw+wC22hDzhH/8tycH1RLeMP7nQIK7JWNzhrzkp8l2lxxx8Zl lm1p30rHubnw6iB7r6+fOo7CColTeyxtBnk8dA9FJkyjxERVAx0mCTqIFRmEAiHwQy8k 8Zbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39muaFkSQWnz2AVM1Sd7Hvjh6eL06Gogze34d3XxAuzOK0gUFtAUkc3705kpGMv9Aw==
X-Received: by 10.223.171.30 with SMTP id q30mr1777170wrc.61.1487931273768; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.18] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 65sm9703579wri.53.2017.02.24.02.14.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <9311B0B8-FCB5-4D1B-8107-BB3EB94C0C23@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3822E44-4025-40A6-840C-59E9AFF766CE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:14:29 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170224093308.GA2367@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <20170223190730.GL2367@Space.Net> <m2poi8s2cf.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaYuDJm4qROZ3bgDxamG9Xo8Ot88Ej5yHhO7Mj7q+77DCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0hc3DYK7tg0Vi0J5kEdd-CkD4D+cJ7LbaZw5WfNS=ZEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaaOWm+iQMOOGg00CXrhHtKZ0PxBswaJTUn6wf-EDq4KgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxqPzPweW6RQUfHfUB0ZktofuY8HxKz-LbiBNWg+2ZoBaw@mail.gmail.com> <20170224093308.GA2367@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PM8iDO4D6nV6lhJ19Zp8MYFQmeM>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:14:37 -0000

> On 24 Feb 2017, at 11:33, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 06:04:30PM +0900, Erik Kline wrote:
>> IMHO having /64 as the logical unit of allocation to network leaves
>> is a very good thing.
> 
> Why, exactly, except "because it was decided to be that way, many years
> ago"?
> 
> (Not that I have any plans to fight that particular windmill, but /64
> never made sense to me, after all the more interesting aspects of 8+8
> never happened, and thus, effectively, IPv6 today is "IPv4 with longer
> addresses" as far as "hosts attaching to networks" and "routing" is
> concerned...)
> 
> Wasting half the address space and then having to start arguments on
> the amount of subnets available to home users ("can we give them a
> /48, or will we run out?", "can we give ISPs enough space so they can
> give all their users a /48, or do we need to make this a /56?", "how
> much conservation is required by ISPs?") is major silliness - something
> like a /96 would have served the aspect "more machines than you can
> imagine per subnet" perfectly well.

And you can see RFC 5739 on how a /64 subnet is required for each road warrior connected to a VPN.  You’d need a /56 or /48 to do what a /24 does in IPv4.

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email