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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 07:40 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 B45A5129495 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.899 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=-3.199, 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 p_MS79E4GvuN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:41 -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 A0794129AC6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x75so28427726vke.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:41 -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=vgrydZisq0VfDIvgW3Ddd+gjpQx1+qhTo6aBnPcHvFM=; b=eEDWwbDfOe8DwVxqSEp5mnTWaXppc+yJafv9wQI9cmma+RPchKcupjyFzVbMICLmnz 4HH3u6C0eArrzRXrQ4imC5P4KW/pbxqIS536O0sMHHHTXiH4u/Fu4iZEKhhg1EXhKiRG nca0IG14H9vrQPGzT7w09PGZgWACAhTZ3QLP1vtNDg5SR8wM3lw2DXZNnCr+s6LGKLo0 A1VZu+7CNRPYCIsUK53bjKDk95aGC8CEUAUDgT4fRbd8wxECoMgLlakmMcAL/AY3kP4l H7L1mllua5/eJRZKS/GgSjU2LYEoOrS1bVVz5fzHRNcpX82fI8Qx1z9jeW8V4Axl3aL4 wKkw==
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=vgrydZisq0VfDIvgW3Ddd+gjpQx1+qhTo6aBnPcHvFM=; b=TtEpbWaiRXloj3ffHScNOIP69w8c/TpJPM4ypXtLcz2dvYtWvLk6l+sAj7AnxvRj4y DTYroN/DJ0mQxoHwA3yc6Bk8H9QLrvqhjg0lXmsbHq84nHjc06Mnhl+Jm3bi+zJ0VV0j 5d65Ni1a1+TLUdN6JMTqaIWm8YJqUk2fYM968E8SOYojewwGPTfCq9CMlnFjje12YjvI TMJ/yTfsahw3sMJ02wuJQ58q6uV0+TbJC6nnOOibDDWlJaVt4LugCqkg40oXcpz/zWnh G76aUbPp+s+iLHomGxw8q6p6Xg5Y+ZBXNkOMm9nifOysWLRia4HQMKLYLf9TmtXGlUms 1hXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKnxOp73mg+o/WKmXfNor8EwVWMpWs+3t7Y3MDAHioDMnkqB4NcQ2AHrcc67W6vlM9tBlUDIo2RxIKhiui+
X-Received: by 10.31.88.1 with SMTP id m1mr9161178vkb.83.1484293240591; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.49.77 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:40:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e5364595c7b0545f4f381
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oLq-vIL9XXeBmCvUrDKGQ1Ciq28>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@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, 13 Jan 2017 07:40:44 -0000

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> >> we have had to fight massively with vendors to make it classless.
> >> please do not give them excuses to break things.
> >
> > On a lot of hardware /65 - /126 is not very well-supported.
>
> guess the business reason why.  the classful spec gave them a good
> excuse to do a tcam rinse repeat.  i pay to feed the darned  chickens,
> it's time to break the egg.
>

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?