Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Would it help if the problem statemen clarifies that:
> >
> > - There is no race to the bottom. We are not trying to solve ISP problem
> by
> > allowing longer than 64bit prefixes,
> > - It is not about restricting the ISP prefix assignments to minimum one
> 64bit
> > prefix, by imposing 64bit SLAAC prefix limitation on the clients,
> > - Minimum of one 64bit prefix limitation should be imposed by other
> > network elements, rather than clients. Edge routers can block >64bit
> > prefixes,
> > - Clients should be enabled to use >64bit prefixes for SLAAC to address
> X, Y, Z
> > problems, and
> > - Operators engineering >64bit subnets need to evaluate how low is the
> IID;
> > should maximum prefix length be 70 or 96 or ... (for security or other
> > reasons)?
> >
> > Dusan
>
> I'm thinking it might be reasonable to impose a requirement on CE routers
> (and devices in similar roles) that it MUST NOT accept delegation of a
> prefix longer than 64 bits on any interface using a technology that only
> exists on WAN links (e.g., DSL, PON, DOCSIS). This doesn't fully solve the
> problem. But if it's hard to get routers that will accept such delegations
> on WAN-only links, it will discourage most operators from doing them. From
> a business analysis case, the cost of providing prefixes with length <= 64
> would be less than the cost of making sure all their customers have CE
> routers in place that do not have this limitation.
> Barbara
>

I would prefer to not set traps for network operators like this.

CB


> >
> > On 2020-11-06, 9:15 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 06/11/2020 à 11:36, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> > > On 6/11/20 07:04, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> > >> I have been reminded in private about 'race to the bottom'.
> > >>
> > >> In the Variable SLAAC solution draft we do touch on the problem:
> > >>
> > >>> The "race to the bottom problem" - is the problem where allowing
> > >>>  prefixes longer than 64 to be used in SLAAC will lead to 65, 66
> > >>> and so on, up to 127 and 128 allocations.  At that point the
> > >>> bottom would be reached and thus impossible to extend the network
> > >>> further.
> > >>
> > >> A solution is then proposed in section 8 titled "Greater than 64
> > >> bit prefix usage by ISPs is strictly prohibited".
> > >
> > > Then we'd need an RFC for formally creating the Internet
> > > police/militia. (possibly a very bad timing for an already bad
> > > idea).
> >
> > So we need to attenuate that 'strictly prohibited' wording and improve a
> > way forward.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__
> > ;!!BhdT!wVq_pzyE528tYQ87Kjxz_9O56DPf2t4bw1c6tQSvzc64sLdjOExbP4XV4
> > smz_A$
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>