IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 15 November 2020 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D872F3A0E88 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 14:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 aOOajh9IVuVU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 14:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA25E3A0E80 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 14:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183A5389DB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:04:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EaYRXtxLibrL for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:04:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EE3389D9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:04:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D9A57A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:03:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <202011151920.0AFJKN9U003337@mail2.mwassocs.co.uk> <3d26bffe-b6c9-4ed7-6135-a515f9902fd7@gmail.com> <m1keOTi-0000EGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:03:19 -0500
Message-ID: <29299.1605477799@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/50b_F_jS3ZO4v1as8SzT-GyrFV8>
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: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:03:26 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, 07:19 Philip Homburg, <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
    > wrote:

    >> > Again, there are 35 trillion /48s in 2000::/3. How many would you
    >> > need?
    >>
    >> It gets tight when you want the prefix to contain 39 bits to number around
    >> half a million planes.
    >>

    > Why are half a million planes going to be on the Internet?

No, not "Internet"
"internet" --- as in, uses IPv6.
How and if it connects to the DFZ is not really any of our business.

Because thinking that you can put ALG gateways and NATs and other crap in the
way to keep stuff off the internet is IPv4 think.

If our answer to requests for IPv6 address space involves IPv4-style
justification, then we might as well give up and go for triple-NATed CGN.

Now, I don't understand how 39bits are needed to number log_2(10^6) = 20bits
of airplane.  It seems to leave more than 16-bits for subnets on each
airplane, which is still a lot.

Remember that it might be 2^19 concurrent airplanes, but the address plan
would be expected to last a hundred years or so.


    > Supposedly only some drones needed (really?) to be on the Internet. How did
    > that turn into every plane?

Because every plane has electronics that speak IPv6.

    > Can somebody post a link to the draft that tries to justify this idea?
    > Has a security threat model been done?

Who cares?  Firewalls work regardless of what address space is used.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email