IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 13 July 2017 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 3499B126B7F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 m5DLSZMbRubw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 C18D312EC37 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c73so21624499pfk.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nHAUCvrqO24V8jSXpeeJKr+HKq5UDvHIfCfWaI+1TJc=; b=EQY8LnKuWSba73FaDaZ+orfQobUqdJ/1wUpIEEk/er0W0BXCJNOy3/T6BHxD79NCBf KU1HLxjMf9iuo59XXwtWPem8jtN8BsE+aUJZe7+97gvHG8AP4xm5gFoBEBRfjGMGIktm 8bterhX2+/V75pAnMKrWbFXSPrimEv+KQl8attmjrm9rUQDfTVOGo/6O9PdE2pjodp2O uO1QD21Ewn4/4GzI3qtQqfcuRJ+pzkDTMEKZ5sqmBqqdNZ6yuvY3WH9pmYXN8pqC+Iwf xORGbe/YxXKyUxpiER5aK2uAuAEMFWhifEZGKRVGl5Sy1JgdaVpY+Wy93b2RLxc7AMX5 Bwag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nHAUCvrqO24V8jSXpeeJKr+HKq5UDvHIfCfWaI+1TJc=; b=r3vmEQIbWoCB3Gh78MPjg2PQ5aLvYaUJ2swM42mf4gKHyQNV/15Zt2GUVJAVvhsb0X tmIEbU3tb1vOEdRLUn7xih6aof/sTLFpdAKunaehHfgVzAJUayMW98LJ/Zxeiqml8La5 criyN0FgcmV60p7gaXCOa+HR8IK/cpCPFadXTih2Mjee23kpkWZs6XAwqqTHS7pKfPts QaBWs5YV/GWDj9PEZBZzBuviwAzIm9FeHAS3eJJVgBA9G8ITHWwEU16SustwTIIJ4JRH Ktiz4ckSx+/dneIxgJWKCmocWYpVg4Tbs8E1vXVQPDe9N8rZLM+fOyZs7hzYf+kOKmAi jCEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1137y2o6ujsvqLQ72Wc7nK4MHx+hjiXzzpUePn4/iW7n1yXHHS3l UWSGxaGPYHGEZzFS
X-Received: by 10.99.107.135 with SMTP id g129mr6915211pgc.179.1499911759230; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.68.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t78sm8885062pfa.48.2017.07.12.19.09.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <fa66c4ff-dc58-af24-dbbf-3bba9921acc4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:09:21 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2niWjlXvymsh0yUE7XD69KwSIHs>
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:09:21 -0000

On 13/07/2017 13:51, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> 
>>> Of course, the other option is to expand using ULAs, but then, that's
>>> "so IPv4."
>>
>> Not. ULA doesn't imply NAT.
> 
> I never mentioned NAT, Brian. "So IPv4" was meant to imply use of RFC 1918. In fact, I can expand a public IPv4 or IPv6 address space, using private IP addresses or ULAs, with the same advantages and limitations. I can route these inside my network, overcoming the limitations that have a way of creeping up over time.
> 
> The problem is that over time, way more IP addresses become necessary, not just a few more. It's because so many more systems adopt IP, and become so much smarter than they used to be. So you need flexibility to expand, not just in number of connected devices, but also in the architecture of the network.

Sure. Which is why we have always advocated /48 to end users.

Truth be told, I liked RFC3177 a lot more than RFC6177. But 6177 is more realistic.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email