Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 03 June 2008 21:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE43F3A6C1B; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC463A6C1A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDl9OUKMHuf0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43B728C1D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so657873wra.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=48kt2yVdKA6mmOpNgflEGrRrqDj0FrIrHp7Qdp37new=; b=uF3ZH1RXlJMRFw7h0giCchj2zw4+gnmHf4yXJ30cBzeKqXEwR3PiH2+AFisWCrahiWM/9A6xiylPUWGkLYXeESS/UY6PvlPBxWBC0562EuEz0Dc5I1zRh9132qcIWOk0AKQ2aPlsvDz1tUxnCpZZYzUEaospt03Ox36Q9RIYrnQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Dp/Vcqt6W8ydskxNpcY91WeH4vyQ4nLZQuj9f5mG1QfY+oqaOy7vlkFyh/wAuAHjpBrCf00viozcLk57FAuHwPYytdY3fwyz0b4lDS9CG6jtB/9peMJI10NkiAfsfrsUE/FzHJS70ruc5mqOlbmL5ULYDXeTa5UqYEAMAeuVogs=
Received: by 10.142.126.17 with SMTP id y17mr581360wfc.244.1212529052749; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm1059200wfi.14.2008.06.03.14.37.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4845B998.1010401@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:37:28 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
References: <C46AB084.3A7B8%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <C46AB084.3A7B8%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Cc: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Leo, On 2008-06-03 18:25, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 02/06/2008 11:24, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> ... >>> For all other >>> cases it introduces a bias that has no science about it. >>> In otherwords it introduces bias in 99.99999% of cases. >>> It helps in 0.00001% of cases (and this is a generous estimate). >> In IPv4 that may be so. In the IPv6 model, which is still PA-based >> and multiprefix, it's far from true. > > I'm not sure that the reality of IPv6 prefix distribution is that it is > PA-based. A quick look at the statistics published by AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN > and LACNIC (RIPE doesn't have a PIv6 policy yet) shows that about 1000 > prefixes are /32 or shorter while about 275 are /40 or longer. I don't deny that some registries have started allocating PI prefixes for large sites. That doesn't make PI the default model for small and medium multi-homed IPv6 sites, which is where our scaling problem will lie. I agree with Mike St Johns that this should be discussed on IPv6 lists, except for the uncomfortable fact that RFC 3484 makes recommendations for IPv4 too. Maybe the Internet Area can consider that aspect? Brian _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Mark Andrews
- RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Pekka Savola
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 SM
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Mark Andrews
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Leo Vegoda
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Thomas Narten
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Simon Josefsson
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Simon Josefsson
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Simon Josefsson
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Michael StJohns
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Joe Abley
- Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 Brian E Carpenter