IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fri, 24 February 2017 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 F08CD129657 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6gTCeWwv0EEV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:33:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [195.30.115.67]) (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 B5074126FDC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:33:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B166615B7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:33:09 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F7A602B6; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:33:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id D60B5154D3; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:33:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:33:08 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
Message-ID: <20170224093308.GA2367@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="Vm3jasITniUHaScm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxqPzPweW6RQUfHfUB0ZktofuY8HxKz-LbiBNWg+2ZoBaw@mail.gmail.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/g4xGqaPJNWWhCgYuOQ10KsIxjUk>
Cc: 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 09:33:13 -0000

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.  SLAAC would have been a bit more
challenging, but "use the MAC address" was not *such* a good idea 
either.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email