Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-lap-00.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 06/14/2018 06:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 14:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:48 AM Brian E Carpenter <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can discuss the "race to the bottom" and privacy arguments
>>> rationally with this terminology.
>>>
>>
>> If the problem here is that some people think that changing the acceptable
>> prefix length will cause a race to the bottom, then how does creating a
>> name help? Just so that have a name to use to track progress in the race?
> 
> Two names, adding Mark Smith's SAID suggestion. And yes, having a name or
> names that express that there's a decision involved (is this acceptable?)
> is IMHO a way to track progress in the discussion as well as in deployment.
> It's a very mild form of a thinking tool (as per Daniel Kahneman).
> 
> If somebody wants to deploy subnets with a maximum of (say) 256 IoT
> nodes, and doesn't care about entropy in the IIDs because of privacy
> aspects of the specific scenario, why should we care if they choose
> a SAID of 8 bits?

In fact, long addresses seem to be so bad for constrained devices than
one has to resort to a kludge such as "header compression".

Header compression itself relies on an historical fact (MAC addresses in
IIDs), which we have moved away from (RFC8064). Meaning that if IoT
devices cannot handle long addresses, they'd be better off using lnger
prefixes rather than relying on kludges such as header compression.



-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492