IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 prefix lengths - how long?

James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com> Sun, 09 June 2019 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <james.cutler@consultant.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 E28B012003E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mail.com
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 kjIWF9SYzhRb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.com (mout.gmx.com [74.208.4.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8CC120018 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mail.com; s=dbd5af2cbaf7; t=1560095955; bh=0UpuQSstT04lKdDSRsrXGrA0nYMVyRss0Wc0L5U95aI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=wRV8WyZb4aGVVOTFy7huv/PVgJ94LtkQX2w0cvE+YRPAyaGfQbXm/aeVgahGLFmxk JEj3qEA5W1qwtTiILORapHqbFgCV/oWxuSsnyzz5Io6iEuq1WY5ZLwjfCym7jxxy8p r5ahXORiA7X4UYGPA+B8NnlEQOxFKdY6S7kbvWyI=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 214d933f-fd2f-45c7-a636-f5d79ae31a79
Received: from maxijim.local ([68.55.30.51]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmxus002 [74.208.5.15]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M0gga-1ggedg1s8E-00uqrc; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 17:54:10 +0200
From: James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com>
Message-Id: <EEBC9697-18A1-41DF-95FB-33D0F5098620@consultant.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_90195CBC-7882-4373-8923-04A1BFF32ABA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: IPv6 prefix lengths - how long?
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:54:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <9826C993-3670-4D7B-8709-B3FDE2A79359@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
References: <ee811897e2d2438e9c3592012b725ac3@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2xyenxV+z58VW_h4skbWz14hyVt2pUd32tLZ826UoZKZA@mail.gmail.com> <9826C993-3670-4D7B-8709-B3FDE2A79359@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:NRhUZ1MErZ/GJ+hJArJ+b5+qARFV0APCKEdSVfGavKxQrs8soz8 wyKaZWhlxz7awBkMV17O/6NqPoKbIdq1RmKj5souub5ZANRp7aetcYacFNY2BZ4Poi9bAl2 a1N0kkV+LbQDnSp5uLeZoW0Z6BUyfsSHs/vqwczNurlFcIIE2g3n1dobXoAWdOI+NtrLqQL 5Tl6YLmrrFMaK0o1Y4xbg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:xoZfPNl7Gc0=:A2wyjqDId7nN3u3Z0VP8t2 SW3q4rBHW449MixS7m0nY0/HPFOY6kZnyGYasZjQ2EKV3tWBNxkJ/KhEzHtlc3EbAR0BK7vOm 17Eg0eBCNPnbzQ6PwluERbw8DbQb9Em4P5BRZAPGw+/y17mH7hgMfLDBA+yz0M+MXLrN4nAw0 PDXDpnwTuIFmbJaMJCw4lFpznHqy0nKjaal9I/auuhMKZ8SFefo+WVkzVAyPG3j7j1g3pQMj1 PxV9MpjIsqWExA1Jk4dnZST7ZLdV66vmjQiX3DybryZfg+jmHQqEIfVTG1JIFzL3WWpR7nstH hlX8R565wl7cRMF+aLyJEzrj5XiP0HdnC808gPIpp1yUosILA/OEAP+lwVC+sKHPa7aroQYPi y0fxEhzTYkPq25frErNhiso5aKMNiLEMJk4+ljuDbQ2QiSWpaNvP6AdiyjNWaJ2Zpgk7OtCJG GBmgCBNMVYVgjgmJUQAxfxbepPzvTz/FlMA9D3a+3nYcrtZYomRyYZthc2SCdI823W7lYWxl3 LzJnpxh7x2USppMDdNwHNPVEFPvuMny84EjJkpBN6ROqcxV6GMcTuDHfC4ENQI2P3wvHkcKoY ZiX6V7IGemmO74Iks7mE21BMom0Tz+0KUvXHNowGYfKHR5rGHo1nKygINzG12J3gvD6ViB5td 2eC6uti1kxzKAuHBXQI3jfAtz4uDFw8Q/oY+NPNIS1397G+gdRWoirSGolD8/5QUOZF39D++r 4WdGrAuaogHm5H4JOzi1RtInavtZKCQt7VkzfHZ7OfU0wKvYHuU0nJ/GEBJVXQcxBENYrS5xa JYa9ayyijVS1A/q6SaiWCmnhLpPIyFRbxOqRVBMNu4PZkeToKDlpTlS2a7FR8xjbBvT01RlPX iyW/ey/mDzlJj2DQHJZZLzXQKm9PhKqHcoDlYENrqvpty5DgOHLSJeKk4f75C0cKq5DiO1c6q SA0qGBBQNXdeYCQMRJCiUg/Rw5q8VOoio5RmC29TvsaMPe9+nGqrK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/AfwnBpj69hvtKkYvqSe5LJU99aw>
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, 09 Jun 2019 15:59:18 -0000

> On Jun 9, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All your concerns are duly noted.
> 
> As far as changing the prefix length I understand that with IPV6 it seems and maybe true that IPv6 exhaustion is not possible but that is what we said about IPv4 but that does not give reason to be wasteful.  I believe 64 bits iid is wasteful.
> 
From many views, I must agree with you about “wasteful”.

Where we part company is that the costs involved in changing away from 64 bits is more wasteful than your proposal. The especially applies to time (labor) costs, both for new RFPs, design and prototyping, and deployment costs. It has take around two decades to get this far with IPv6. Adding yet another detour to this journey is not an improvement.

James R. Cutler
James.cutler@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email