Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 14 January 2017 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E472F1293F5; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:33:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atVacAo5chE4; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:33:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5D6129436; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 75so92459pgf.3; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:28:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4wvoy4pf9lVSDxPLScnBOMbbfsRh3H6RxnqB/4xdoMY=; b=myVyOWO9VvyRYbELppXBcXgO5KWxDo1OiJS8RHKW0zgsB84+E46GSa8Of2neh89zhb EoYIDdF83bxFMYs9ejb5I5yDiFm+mgQi/p/quTPi0OwzrIDa0rZiuy+95DLKTdFoMDD0 CpKZ49q+zCI8wzBBSVU/zOERL2xZsJ8QBZPOe3VudQMm6pGRXs/5CgJR+KRx/mc1pqQ6 0IRnI9TLWBjmqzkUOuSg/D99v5fkZ57xqyLufyPQvlcTv33M5P+V30xIMtcGM5posM/a kRB12o5Ai63TEO7V/YItFO8a4FpcAyIwk3YioVwHg+Toyu12PxyQZNB2D1MGt2CcMnlI 3AAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4wvoy4pf9lVSDxPLScnBOMbbfsRh3H6RxnqB/4xdoMY=; b=q2O+ENIR6ur8FHwsx5Mb37c7Bv9j4RWTfHlGz8HTZVRbEwBLMSJiA2jyiMoAdQ5D0O cBlQjMbyFehC8YM5wbTUdyiwu/VQV1eG+QHbYCEssyybmGZGdC2J3riU+vW9uoHHsfLS uKBjbLvEVH1J/rxUFu2MyAKVMiM0+mxgg7JnH85OWq1fDWPXOYididRFoIb3HuY+vIzR N9MfFa6jHNfbwB2U0T1KWF5L3gOVKEy7CYy8dL/5xobXcdbdv6+WWJ7/CTVHCEuW2als tZagw+ogTNeLU3J+tJ4saqAMmTzzvCYxdL466CnVsz71ua14QVZvaeF5XYFDnOP/Uet8 ymqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLzMHeQv9DYSOLGAUobqP+VnVuqUW5c0+agTlSQ2nvbkwQvoWArxVEKnq/0w2/tXw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m71mr26533280pfk.102.1484364484772; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id y6sm32286658pge.16.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: John C Klensin <>, Lorenzo Colitti <>, Randy Bush <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:28:10 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>,, Bob Hinden <>,, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 03:33:36 -0000

On 14/01/2017 16:06, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, January 13, 2017 16:40 +0900 Lorenzo Colitti
> <> wrote:
>> But it's true that supporting /65-/126 increases the cost of
>> the device. The extra bits have to go somewhere. I think I've
>> seen hardware that just converted all prefixes to 128 bit if
>> there was at least one /65 - /126 prefix in the FIB. That
>> costs money for RAM. Obviously that's silly if those prefixes
>> are frequent, and you can save that money using better
>> software engineering - but software engineering costs money
>> too. Prefixes don't cost money, and if we know that we won't
>> run out of them, what's the problem?
> Because you can pick the scenario -- lots of "things", an
> interplanetary network, both, or something else-- but we have
> been here before.   Every time someone has said "there is so
> much address space that we will never run out no matter how
> inefficiently we use them", they have eventually been proven
> wrong.  That history is obviously not just with the
> ARPANET/Internet or even computer networks: "if we know we won't
> ever run out of them" has a nasty tendency to prove that we
> didn't know and didn't get it right.

Which is exactly why we have so far only delegated 1/8 of the
IPv6 address space for global unicast allocation, leaving a *lot*
of space for fixing our mistakes. Moving away from /64 as the
recommended subnet size might, or might not, prove to be necessary in
the long term future. That's why the point about routing being
classless is fundamental. I do think we need to be a bit more
precise on this point in 4291bis.