IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.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 BCAAB1295A1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 9waOTqra0w-H for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A998612953F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #127) id m1cijEV-0000GWC; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:58:31 +0100
Message-Id: <m1cijEV-0000GWC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <c690af05-c102-f917-8933-433bc8b1dbac@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:48:54 +0100 ." <c690af05-c102-f917-8933-433bc8b1dbac@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:58:30 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9cpIfifJfNvFPfNXtRH8x2G7tek>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:58:33 -0000

> Because with this 64 limit the network can not grow at the edges.
> 
> Cellular network operators dont assign multiple /64s per connection
> - just one.  I would like to ask you what do you think about this?
> Do you think cellular network operators could assign multiple /64s
> per one connection?  Or a /63?

So those providers are just providing a broken IPv6 connection.

I don't fully agree with Lorenzo, but anything longer than a /56 just
doesn't make any sense in this context.

Note that a /56 is already longer than an IMSI.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email