Re: the race to the bottom problem

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sat, 07 November 2020 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8FB3A07C4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 13:02:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 NE0lX4FWdhJh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 13:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [46.182.8.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B75A3A07CE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 13:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0A7L2VcV023978 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 7 Nov 2020 21:02:33 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: the race to the bottom problem
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Mudric, Dusan" <dmudric=40ciena.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <160409741426.1448.16934303750885888002@ietfa.amsl.com> <3c1c3ab5-5726-b141-e7ed-618984bbbdb1@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1zoZpZNjb54rEys4+49H3vpebZW2g9JbO1_58eR+WnQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3L7kz=cWu8s3X=djVf4MCwewzbEgx09TWaKzCULCjYUQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A9CE8E7-3552-4FD8-A50E-1BDCA2CB813F@employees.org> <CABNhwV0LxM7EuKo2wNtVacjewsVqdhrmSiVBmB_EL-mqJYdU3A@mail.gmail.com> <CD9F9F09-2CBC-4A72-99C0-4A9A470357ED@employees.org> <9e787ed0-a221-e413-e030-ac2553dffc8e@gmail.com> <a21c9447-730b-e2c0-81f6-46deda57f507@gmail.com> <f4635fa9-45ca-f7ec-40a2-41764e1ca74f@si6networks.com> <905bcc26-a223-53d0-6675-c35579b9a8be@gmail.com> <AAE75F7F-F8DF-4B7F-9C50-3D6C91544997@ciena.com> <2b59b2de-3597-8d35-374d-75e9b10d4d83@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zUvDE2ZSCnZa_525Hj7OthhEoDGZcd0D9xxZVW3D8aeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yiXR43mL45KbsZkKY7_YVhWFzW82LL6qed6mVPBjxaw@mail.gmail.com> <E87C175C-C06D-485E-B790-6BC3DB48F101@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <3daa3475-68f8-88e0-9fc4-77a58c074fbf@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 21:02:30 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.36
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E87C175C-C06D-485E-B790-6BC3DB48F101@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0Jlur4ngcW5SPt6AqlW8Z2UQPuA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 21:02:45 -0000

Bob Hinden wrote on 07/11/2020 17:41:
>> The logical consequence is that we end up at /128. This is
>> particularly risky because any operator with lots of experience
>> with IPv4 will find "one /128 per host" obvious, expected and
>> natural. One device has one IP address, right? And once get to that
>> point, we'll need to bring back NAT in order to extend further.
>> That would pretty much make the entire transition to IPv6
>> pointless. We might as well have stayed with IPv4.
> 
> I agree.

there's a string of generalisations and assumptions going on here, and 
like many arguments which use reductio ad absurdum, I fear that the 
outcome shows the absurdity of the line of argument more than the issue 
being argued about.

Nick