IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 9780E12985F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:56:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 S18rVwomu2YN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D9A5129503 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v1MHuN7O039139 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:56:23 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 579DC207106 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:56:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C4A207063 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:56:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1MHuNUw011515 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:56:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com> <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org> <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com> <ECF27195-4A6B-4AFC-8950-83876F333BD4@employees.org> <20170220235734.GA84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr3p=8b9Dmmb9GvGMq1u00xnE2ScmaF_a3FJXiteL=ZhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local> <CAO42Z2xEqnz4=E7JDOA_FCg_RxkMuZgnBc3KuaxwY1oZryed9g@mail.gmail.com> <20170221202821.GB32367@Vurt.local> <CAO42Z2yK_rZksa4xQkuW8Q_hwaitH610m6kVBmFisN7toaSoPw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3pNBCNFRkZiDYoOp7CDDG-4pbuzkLW8UeJB_bbS7QEWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb235822-f45a-5ccd-9493-07e2f560fddd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:56:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3pNBCNFRkZiDYoOp7CDDG-4pbuzkLW8UeJB_bbS7QEWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a9xjr6wVYbPpwWS3Z6ibCPwARKU>
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:56:27 -0000


Le 22/02/2017 à 18:46, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com
> <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Let's leave behind unnecessary practices that have been used to
>     extend IPv4's life, and that make things unnecessarily complicated
>     and more costly to operate and troubleshoot.
>
>
> What he said.

I think this comparison to IPv4 is non-sense.

I think IPv6 should benefit from IPv4 experience of no-fixed-length
Interface ID and DHCP.

I think you should try the experience of trying to persuade ISPs to
involve DHCPv6 PD before you can claim networks can grow in the presence
of this /64 limit. Or otherwise tell when the smartphones 'tether' by
using a Standards Track protocol.

Until then there is no reason to have a /64 recommendation.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email