Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sun, 15 January 2017 15:54 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 075E512945E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 kBqjUxdtzsIH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x236.google.com (mail-ua0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::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 D0623129424 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x236.google.com with SMTP id y9so67442530uae.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:53 -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=A/aiNMK6KzgNO/OZ9TKdlF1Bce6FkMDARouRcPxr3zk=; b=dLJeWpw36DL+BkInPLyJArnb0ueXSrkQ/yy0qzix1IWc1kURDJozCl1hO6XFbFin7l izPQegI8hjTWn6vsXJm3PXHSpRE08RTjMsDFjYeXm6Is3/ZbS9KxR0clvIPzi42CWm2e /eD6hI/3Dd75t/7gt3645qcP5ZGYwLSUcVyHuwyK2ZWzMCfQfPw/LUneFgvFFpeka3/f 7l/ud2Ybn/7Sbx4U/kR5Oqa++o4g6QPtSenSbpmX0VuZWBMZCI+SWt/AGQy23wHTaGos fQgVAPmLZM8mBOjFmkHqifqT04KEItE9uVIDIwOIipg8gKzhoo0eYaN2vXtoINnroNc1 fQ/g==
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=A/aiNMK6KzgNO/OZ9TKdlF1Bce6FkMDARouRcPxr3zk=; b=cFN21R06C1UAbQyf/+0kud50KIvCXPOtnJf+E4Wbe0QsQ2n2aSHlEwj2gmcW9n5c5a zQ3SufS9gGpER+A+GDL+GgUkKQTVSJmMti3XeSn9JqsZYoprqwPeOf+GkIJM0mz7dOhG KCzIlktkSX535gKVZ6/Pc7qMdSW6z9gzm/tgofoHbkpkBe5YX+9gu4UqcKWNFYCntTzP yMyxKCf50AfP9EL5nHkSzFhFvwpXBbOcYNf3AzBYvupHDHqWL2+rEaKuB0mqOIxzjTMx 9uXVEbB7Xnbs8b/25kpDaV2d9nj+VHXC5lnqNpY4meGFdFu4nwxeRV6OItPp11EpEm6I uo9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ1myrT5QNyRENL8wZV1HJSlBCfBRQ8R+QIHZSy2RGf/PHZnGIdk8iW++OzEZEja9stXHEpHVI+0KcbYTzk
X-Received: by 10.176.5.138 with SMTP id e10mr12308210uae.109.1484495692536; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:54:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170113200334.GO40198@shrubbery.net>
References: <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <20170113200334.GO40198@shrubbery.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:54:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0z1DSjxkdSHktbs+i24nn3hLK9N812fSHydOpJJYWKyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1247946fdc4405462416a4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Du-oHvGDGMQde0R6F2S106GXg8Q>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@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: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:54:56 -0000

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:

> > But it's true that supporting /65-/126 increases the cost of the device.
> > The extra bits have to go somewhere. I think I've seen hardware that just
> > converted all prefixes to 128 bit if there was at least one /65 - /126
> > prefix in the FIB. That costs money for RAM. Obviously that's silly if
> > those prefixes are frequent, and you can save that money using better
> > software engineering - but software engineering costs money too.
>
> do such limited devices really need complex ribs/fibs?  address, router,
> neighbors.  all of which are needed regardless of the prefix length.
>

The "/65 - /126 challenged" devices I'm talking about were very big iron
routers.


> > Prefixes don't cost money,
>
> but, they do: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html


No, they don't. The link you provide says you get a /32 for $1000, which
puts the cost of a /64 at $1000 / 2^32 or $0.0000002.