IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 06E871294A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 KCMKv7wMM5fg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 612B31299E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x75so6354391vke.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7Uvinm3bzdx1YT9pY+hA3zOYKoNkDrYkXSF2CHabCLE=; b=BYILDP+Tcq+yU9gi/N5FMTpq+QNOmcKYdNH/IOazya2N6s5MATAKuuckYyVdkCh0ZA wYL3j2l03R7wIvcpUKLPSSoXf3VFFuJEn+Hmuw1EoExlkjFfllEyGBuy6o23l+qvdQL6 DH0eGgrob7hQQKO8GVzxlYR5aGJKTgK+4ewHhFa6qtwsEhzgqkUu4HpwIrqyfjj1pC6j 3Efv94I5MvcRTIlA457urtDSdpyQtTCtTzUSY1XQYG8oAMNXKF2euGFwVaL8a16uCCAr hfbwZZ9gpg+8IGZIJ+cSlK3GBOf9smzjqFH4P0QQ7jBZVf6zHgvpaUV4ovBc4Pzhgi8d GTMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7Uvinm3bzdx1YT9pY+hA3zOYKoNkDrYkXSF2CHabCLE=; b=sc21uOeDb9F3xjiIASe+z+hDvkZmlK48KkgifAtraBqSbkVZhaINOsHp+2I7RXFc+3 SLJTPXMoXF/qFC5kn1yKVs6AcTmqZBJKoM5ybV9V2TaYS9WiEh40UYdr3SMEynNq+N7Z cw3PGU/TZvq95HfP4hTraRgLsbm8rsQuKbBlK5TiyjhpOGF3ekeh0GlV6okvi4il94w2 bOHDR0lVKZalWk2plMLeFfxoHfVc4kC+WMpnz9g/jWBQsObP6DyiMARuebIn+UCSBLNM XTVA/5uiAEWziU9FZYsxg1+2svT6sSDTBu8DSdP/NATJNE5Oo3+Avd/ZSvBlqH8vNN7k seSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k6hKi+9n9K3loVMoS9GG62qN1+bie4wwiUwiOKPULmeUBZHX0xm5dgv6MT5FCKCvkkS3u9ZlLs7IKaqhpz
X-Received: by 10.31.170.15 with SMTP id t15mr471606vke.6.1487235148155; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:52:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <44F7BEDA-CF11-4E1E-BA6F-88794DEC1AF7@employees.org>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com> <B4A4FFFD-A90D-4C26-BDBD-75555840CA22@employees.org> <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com> <44F7BEDA-CF11-4E1E-BA6F-88794DEC1AF7@employees.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:52:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0Wii_gknFy+uPt+MqTLa_=O_y6JT+qdR8psaHTjUztfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11432250b4a8da0548a1ea6c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iXzwjiQr0XT_o4kWfaAHaZKvueE>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:52:32 -0000

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:40 PM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> See 7421, 6177, 7368, section 3.4.
>
> There are many reasons for the 64 bit boundary.
>   - Allowing identifier locator split: 8+8 / GSE that led to ILNP and NPT66
>   - Simplicity in addressing (no more subnet masks)
>   - A fair balance between the users and the providers of networks.
>     Ensure that users get a fair share of addresses and try to avoid
>     operators charging per address.
>
> The 64 bit boundary is so embedded in the set of IPv6 specifications that
> it would be very hard to unravel at this point. It certainly cannot be a
> single paragraph put in during the advancement of 4291.


Right. If we want to change this we can, but the process for that is start
with "write a draft and get consensus in 6man". We cannot change it while
revving 4291 to full standard, because it's a substantial change.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email