IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 15 September 2017 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 F0C1D133056; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Cr15APOwXfWL; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 01:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B32132F2E; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 01:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACD5A2D4FD0; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:10:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DF310810FDF; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:10:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <3F17FC48-D8CB-46A4-A8B3-0BC7F65E6D26@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3F2B221A-5113-4028-844B-DB9E22506984"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:10:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7e8fd49f-a777-fd9e-d410-be7e8d5958cc@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <150523432567.17956.11322312258310497482@ietfa.amsl.com> <7e8fd49f-a777-fd9e-d410-be7e8d5958cc@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1d3PzsLkttfrx4Z3e9mzMATXlJY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:10:49 -0000

> Re https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00
> 
> "One of the goals of IPv6 was to have a sufficiently long address
> to allow grouping in fields to simplify routing decisions."
> 
> What makes you believe that? I don't recall such a goal in the IPng
> process, and I can't see any trace of it in RFC1752 or RFC1726.


“Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow addressing; choose one” - Y Rekhter

Goal or no goal, we know of no other way to make the routing system scale.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email