IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 prefix lengths - how long?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 June 2019 19:31 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 B4DC812004B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 6XLVmYPbkbFr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C10D0120284 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D811538188 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AC281F2A; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9CD4AA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 prefix lengths - how long?
In-Reply-To: <F971D5DA-9523-4B9A-A34C-161A73FB2B50@gmail.com>
References: <ee811897e2d2438e9c3592012b725ac3@boeing.com> <F971D5DA-9523-4B9A-A34C-161A73FB2B50@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:30:54 -0400
Message-ID: <30559.1559935854@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5Xcj7jNBEWEaRfXmXKDob8XuYJo>
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: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:31:08 -0000

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > It's not really a technical requirement that all platforms have to
    > support. It's a market requirement, and the platform in question is
    > being designed to meet that market.

I agree that it's a market requirement not a technical requirement.

It would help the market if customers could understand which market they are
in, and could communicate their needs consistently to vendors (or to search
engines).

And vendors could position their equipment intelligently into different
markets.  So it would be nice if we could make up a few categories that
we know about, leaving gaps where we don't know anything.

The IETF Conference network is clearly one category we know well.
An IX network is another useful data point.

The data center with 10,000 VMs in a cabinet is probably a third, but it may
be far more complex.  Maybe the RIFT people can give us some numbers.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email