IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 12 November 2020 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 131B93A0418 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 shS3JykC6U4q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:04:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 A4D933A03FB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3E6E7B0; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:04:16 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605182656; bh=Q4d64cIPZVrTAlHzwwNYiNwMKnBWQPYSA9KUbXXs4rM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0Qv1BlG1YWDQjyGLaiTJgkJsXEnxJAnWrC2jUS39Le+Avy/3kbCO3buwOQVErCtgK CwIY7mYohyn8boqzPxNE/OT5S7U5jrBZfw9s0JpP7LeyblvCSJL4viPolPvaT7Kpip wsQV2kLpYqXFgcrcjKF25AQJYsbvdV3o7UmZHrmM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F799F; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:04:16 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:04:16 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
In-Reply-To: <m1kdANg-0000IEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011121301300.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <005ECBB3-088B-4363-BB53-8D4AD25CA3D2@employees.org> <b468124f-f85b-7e20-a354-c6b7eaba3447@mccallumwhyman.com> <20593.1604972743@localhost> <CAKr6gn0tedRz4iBu49Lrw5qMCdXWPcg-66UAOfHeJ_ZUeq8U4g@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2c_qaQGY2J62LDh=EZYHo5poYNF_Asf908ofR3wfmW1g@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3wgdOUKqOyqJ4bTvVv4PKq81anYCxASOTCEMg3T84zig@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaaDYrXVTGQeWh4aAc-qUVCoxRNokwANpQhuZ4OGdpySMw@mail.gmail.com> <46a202df-bae8-626b-042a-72adc3d31fcc@gmail.com> <CABNhwV0eRYx9jaygAaZ=KZ45zz-X3+Un17Oi8gv2wzf2-HzXMA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3cYvdssqK8EJ+_goH5_tLi0vm_Dy5M4bj+-Mp_yVaReg@mail.gmail.com> <m1kdANg-0000IEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ck7_WcQruWJvdmYi5x__i__T3YM>
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:04:21 -0000

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, Philip Homburg wrote:

>> With existing 64share stealing of the radio /64 has there been any reported
>> issues in deployment & instability from renumbering events?
>
> In my opinion it would be bad to have a standards track document that
> only considers one link type when there are a lot more uses for the defined
> functionality. I.e., if we were to define a 'PD' bit, then we need to consider
> what would happens on other links.
>
> I think it would be different if it would be an informational RFC that
> defines no additional protocol bits. I.e. a PIO with all flags clear currently
> has no semantics.

If we say the link type is "point to point" and that's the only 
definition, it'd be applicable to PPP(oE), GTP, the 
point-to-point-ethernet proposal, possibly some other deployment model 
where it can be guaranteed that there is only a single recipient of 
packets. Other tunnel types also comes to mind.

It isn't hard to imagine other media types being designed with this in 
mind going forward...

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email