Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 6F3A31299AD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 gG3tNOF2GgZX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 55DED1299DE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id k127so2945180vke.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hhN7oueNyaqvwLGrRskeJ04PTOPHQK6LbfEdbVzsgcI=; b=ST7zq83T9jlDOv3kmThimDDrG7kQ/UK+pygB7nDI7yZdzI7K0tyRJgV91osya6xIRs VBM/DCgbGdUZKnFxaqcrR3kqq7qiVaV1a/1NrlgXlUe6qcXsRSgke9oEMGejPKInCE9+ 0TCMp8NplQsjR1Jb97P7vf3u+9y4R2E19nfejt9dM07IEKMcVlumE1xhFmJPj4atIlfh E6aDtRGwV2PN4vpT7uc87ebWkiyaT9HR0Rm5QNphAesTdFJYRkK6o7EGvJnqarmiQWJ5 0dMeM67Qe9mGeTW8AkZzXYe+M/IXisIPl79zE4w+LFmj4AUAIp7Eknn7suHbMJxz30nj i3Bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hhN7oueNyaqvwLGrRskeJ04PTOPHQK6LbfEdbVzsgcI=; b=oU6W4pM+9/08gZ5jcUQ2rvZCZmQTgAzs4oSf5OrlXePUrrULLc+JRJmMTYh9zIWVO6 3AYOjVltYTU1oaDI8Nm/wllilK5IRPerEAef/zHU530cM939FA1zXi60SzOoJ+d8AYSE fChB1tplRUMZ7PMkX+3s10luaY1npHCi4TdL4pv+eXz6u1mjBV5cJz5k2HaSZ1kJKhFS bK8H5z6TFVahKMcNw25XVxrhwqm/OPFKjVnpK3ehLuhxgrPEuije1g1l7zr2wLOdent2 qsJ47EYNXtGPfOX36auzBs/HSyLapUX8aRWs0nI3o7fEriHmaETfaTVR29xN2ZC8CvDT vnbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kkTEl+Jks4NjRUdHriuvPkaI2PrZKvYY0Don6PZWlYxgZ/70PiFbLDjzDvw4ITF0n+RFJ/0X5XF3aTJ98V
X-Received: by 10.31.59.197 with SMTP id i188mr12296425vka.45.1487775230170; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:53:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:53:29 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2n=ogFo7LJYgjcraoFxioQQzmo8HYxzNRJ10VA8xMVOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142f1781a0c0905491faa52
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DJExQX4d0t1h4lSjbDHRNzUEOdA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:53:55 -0000

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:

> > That argument is nonsensical. You can't prove that A is better than B
> only
> > by saying that A is not the same as B.
>
> Since you are unwilling to accept that there could be downsides to using
> a /64, i understand the argument makes no sense to you. Reasonable
> people can disagree with each other.
>

I stand by the position that "/126 is better than /64 because /126 is not
/64" is a nonsensical argument. Saying "/126 is better than /64 due to
reasons A, B, C, ..." will likely be more effective - well, depending on
what A, B and C are. But I haven't heard much in the way of supporting
evidence from you other than "my network uses lots of prefix lengths thus
/64 is bad". That in itself is not convincing to me. Perhaps I am missing
something else you said?



> Why publish a document that conflicts with (almost) every deployed
> global IPv6 backbone? This would be a farce.
>

"Conflicts with the NTT backbone" != "conficts with almost every deployed
backbone". The backbone I am familiar with uses a combination of /127, /64,
and link-local point to point interfaces, or at least it did last time I
checked.

Also, backbone networks are a tiny percentage of the links on the planet.