IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6]Re: Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2024 01:52 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 0D727C14CE4A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vsw4XKqJf3BV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46594C14CF1F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-6c53a315c6eso1768596a12.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717379519; x=1717984319; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yddq6UCVGcffapzic+KqqfqsSBjv7AHyzPxrqO1MWZE=; b=cufPMeEP4YmRE/EZ1QXlsvTNBGdqU9gmSqBOr91TJ+GT2YYy+4ejwS54JiTzwN5Jrt iHQYgl7UrhYJDl/21Rr+0MFyxO9k5YHPjNvxCbwZbFN4spwxycOKsjTVN/mGDsfUlG5a C+xX9c/t5u5aywRR/XndZ4CWOsOSgOEkeK0VxTh7WMSvL+nrtJphaOhaZ8nM5eJUjURn Bi2JH4MTFtPj+ZLjpvn9Oh+KCjerO0wF7Tm/DzG2E1gVWQ4PGIt6/cmFTI/qibob0OWS xhFIJODiN78zdVYqHJYnRtIpmn6bd3nxV/MCQmlOB1G/wAGgogO1G3suL8iX5Igp6d0J XL7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717379519; x=1717984319; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yddq6UCVGcffapzic+KqqfqsSBjv7AHyzPxrqO1MWZE=; b=jX9e/VXTR9LjkTMiiCd9DGaiFGazUjMAse008rtQM7UuRL/xE07RrWDQvEknGl9eL1 PvPjVjn9135Jl6OTX3iNK1KDJ8ah1fngiC+ENHMCKJSIMGXEoprtBRHTyO1rF/4KFEC3 kB4GDkOYEIbZbPISpiFw42QlYiVEeccwujEFJ57/8TrUr0s95TsgFpTMESCPkKtQgzlO OiOrp/fAcs1aBpAKtgfErqrvsqRCccmn+f8HneiB+JEKbVUODpOju6Zk5cVrYDYDxwk1 du+sZs21elSbXEi1euStKURdBJpOF3WbY3Fh4cHhoNMvciwRLzF40iQHPc6OonlPV1Uv rrnw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXYDrK35oFj+IAPYq6Ky+nGcKNhcLRI4SiR2nFAEyLtmND1F57wsRwZ5CuuROtpxGMfbJrh/FnYxA/vb3gm
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxog5aoIDTjSfGhQTnLoilqoPchSLqEsSxgU4yj4DCSfSSTgVVT B/w0Z9r0rtTEXgEtLGLcicDwYg8yX3VyJ7LYSLanz8AnQ83dtlNO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEjklP1bLaOyKS7Xk7/FlGK0NquWCHlNeAr+69UVH0z/GFg78qY0Fv7bgg3E796C2s4kM65gw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:3d85:b0:1b2:4780:d9fe with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1b26f30e4aamr8972406637.53.1717379519388; Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-1f63232dcb6sm52844205ad.61.2024.06.02.18.51.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <95dfd2e9-25da-4449-b740-724804a34735@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 13:51:54 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <18236.1717011844@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <2AD87DE1-075E-45E7-A682-8042F04EF59A@employees.org> <89dbde8c-82c9-4a2e-9cff-8d4fd2d8fbe6@gmail.com> <9E7BEA1C-4597-4142-A3AB-57211C436197@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0iR+RZHvuquCGYfntiD+K7-PdkvGJzHLx1PLrFqJ=Z4Q@mail.gmail.com> <47BF97B8-2BEE-47CC-A965-C6BB112990AB@employees.org> <4bcfcd71-d295-433d-813f-1183c7da3cf3@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1CL_Jw4O-iETF6T1v8EL_Lj-fMi6EV=3MgPhN+M2tc8w@mail.gmail.com> <84f6e699-5587-4407-a566-b031c31e2cd5@gmail.com> <CAMGpriWqD99OzdOaJU7_nQTwvD=o1wsVxOQrbMqy5sH7sX7gwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriWqD99OzdOaJU7_nQTwvD=o1wsVxOQrbMqy5sH7sX7gwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID-Hash: KLBN5FV6ATMCHOW26KZ63WXIHPSI54A2
X-Message-ID-Hash: KLBN5FV6ATMCHOW26KZ63WXIHPSI54A2
X-MailFrom: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipv6.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2vg4Eqq0aqujyqZTapzQWQRJeL4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipv6-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipv6-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Erik,

On 03-Jun-24 12:26, Erik Kline wrote:
> 
>      > I get that /64 makes you uncomfortable (presumably due to concerns about address wastage?) but is there actually a rational concern here about IPv6 address space usage? If there is, should we start thinking about changing cellular networks to use prefixes longer than /64? And if not, then why should other types of networks be more constrained?
> 
>     My argument is about being future-proof when we don't know what the future will be. Will what we decide now hinder the deployment of 4000::/3 in some way?
> 
> 
> <no hats>

I think your analysis below is correct, and after reflection I can't see any way that -pio-pflag carries any long term risks. I do wonder whether we should label some operational practices as "only approved for 2000::/3", but of course that could be done retroactively the day that our successors decide to open up 4000::/3.

    Brian


> 
> Without seeking any information about RIR-specific allocations to their requestors, it appears that the IANA "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml>" registry lends itself to a few observations:
> 
> [1] 2000::/4 is not yet completely handed out (2d00::/8 and 2e00::/7 still unallocated)
> 
> [2] 3000::/4 is completely untouched (except for one /16, reserved for legacy ${SHENANIGANS})
> 
> [3] 4000::/3 is completely untouched (except for one /8, reserved for different ${SHENANIGANS})
> 
> [4] There's a long way to go before we get near the f000::/4 space, where things start to get busy again (vis. "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml>")
> 
> In units of /3, I make it out that we have 6000::/3, 8000::/3, a000::/3, and c000::/3 (plus e000::/4) left to try to correct any mistakes, assuming we can identify and learn from them.
> 
> * Apologies for weekend-brain if I've misread/miscalculated things here.
> -ek
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status