Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 19 January 2017 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 C8BB31295F1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 DSar9UNisIXq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBB011295F0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 06:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330004B; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:14:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:from:from :subject:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:received :received; s=mail; t=1484835242; bh=T9rS7DZ8ZfVeXHoscOS5/XuETRPc JNcP4EH29IofpyA=; b=A3JaGYAdRNXv4tFvQQhF6Qm2uoGM2eJEkOclgM5uBkCK NWT0BeisveLIQ/JALOYgJumLi0xC1pk53q/ghiyIpsDOZ/oH9H53Vozb7R1vM9Wu 15SfmtM8pvXDWCR/+ktdbdj2TW/ovICjw8VbZ8RNw6cgaRLfH4eZnZ3DRS2XzM8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 0t1kBcVuV0FV; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:14:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:1cc7:83e8:5c1d:28b0] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:1cc7:83e8:5c1d:28b0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 658144A; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:14:02 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C3E3EBBD-E445-45A3-A605-A24BFE72E974"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <148B5BCE-ED32-4FA8-83BA-48F3F4149396@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:14:01 +0100
Message-Id: <4B3D8528-4F10-4E32-953E-F071EB6E7FB8@steffann.nl>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0OsD4RcVUN+me98g6SJ=oaAr4HoqGtP88PTbMU_-kuGQ@mail.gmail.com> <00D1565E-7119-4C52-AF06-95E3F4C5905A@employees.org> <CAN-Dau0Fkb-M8VM9iL9xwy89bir5PhNHJ3D1VFrnNppVXNyeOg@mail.gmail.com> <562C040F-EC30-49C6-849F-F63BA22233C7@employees.org> <595c73ef-ffa4-6f9e-d810-c 37ea8dc2c0d@gmail.com> <148B5BCE-ED32-4FA8-83BA-48F3F4149396@employees.org>
To: otroan@employees.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5r7GEJRihxLkD-7BUKQaTVpZeQQ>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 19 Jan 2017 14:14:09 -0000

Hi Ole,

> There are good technical arguments for why each host needs more than a single address, and if we end up in a situation similar to IPv4 where each address used has to be justified, then we have lost. There is a justified fear that allowing the 64 bit boundary to slide, we will end up in a situation similar to IPv4 addressing. E.g. charging per address.

Well said, this is exactly the same feeling I have about the 64 bit boundary. I don't think it's important what its exact history is, what the relation to layer-2 addresses is, etc. What is important is that we don't end up with situations where users and devices end up without enough addresses despite the abundance that IPv6 provides.

Cheers,
Sander