IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sun, 04 June 2017 13:12 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 3D683129B22 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 06:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Lfht8yGocZvG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 06:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (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 E8AC4129469 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p62so21511734vkp.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=H1a1K4MtYRUJ+JdW8keRlNRD0hTsLrAhN9AFTZS2c1A=; b=CAcpCYntx5ED9BhSbHNpp7d+LGuhvtO7HwNzdUL8iphP5umDiN3+bI60vejrF6tJIg Pw+b9HDkGAl6LfRjumi9gTx7+oLMZrYNaeExuZmoowEAT34IlBmfUXBww8h9NnHwLDoL 986byejhFhUKwJvOOl6WgIKg7HyhUl+d9VNlRde6NGC0jfO2jH8XXgFTwEv04CDJaDoO zlMR2Hwr5BxRndK+m1ZaKERGRJdBRVFUWJERZPKmwf1lsJdwR0mi0QSZV90k2msSmdev pgtg8sL4ifehXT/7QgoxofuoDr+6LPNwGLEbRDg0E0aTJqcBMeaBTCGoTTtTtqVVx5zU 0Crw==
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=H1a1K4MtYRUJ+JdW8keRlNRD0hTsLrAhN9AFTZS2c1A=; b=kBix3MT5IrHH6KM2Ux8Xk/lS4mhDaOSauUO7QwEHZ2we/Obw02MbqHqDDGkM90qUex r5NXQ/1gkJWNC3meF+ojvl16NAfPtEtChEvAWv844qXIt1q/OIqMWnjdcB03czLqbgor EW7XqcUGGIa+rfwwgpTqh5kW/0JWGYBgP7oCnzxiDy4L/R2DQ+6PAfIZndENhXEL81jW E3wktLL3naF0DAtm0atZCmlJ7WC4jum8blOXLgnvHlY4yuyKYNNgUYKFqavIIB6bsNZG jp1SBbj0so/OlMli5IzxukKvnsMZUg6mNoDJSEehKW/XxohAJ4fq/i4WBuZCrIxzPKle rzvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBUv56+qPYTpRRer5V1N1aTVECDnFFidD31851fDvG+FC5CG2AR 7hnfNeDzk76jPEdzyMgwU5t/NfPscuIKvMU=
X-Received: by 10.31.180.144 with SMTP id d138mr7584890vkf.44.1496581940909; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.138 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170604124829.GI30896@gir.theapt.org>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <CALx6S34y1ZS95dD6Qv5A90RnKwh2NqC=VDaZ2vSq+zpo5+NpUg@mail.gmail.com> <5932DA16.9040008@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3HkiAweix3fhxT2+9moj7eP2AGRtf7hESpOKihKMCUOg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36b_8z2_vi4T8ZNKs72v5rKAR9YpBWz+r+xb-J-yO4sfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0s9TN3dYayhzKqX58yMC39vhGxcVi8+c3b2_VPNiyxwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170604124829.GI30896@gir.theapt.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 22:11:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0g7F5Tq5AFw001dbyfVEbQNFRtrUy+YowdoKhLtnjS4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144073af7a3c605512222da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EnxVqhOGosylmCOGy6ppAdAug8c>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Jun 2017 13:12:23 -0000

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:

> :There is no workable solution if you want to assign 64 bits to the bus, 64
> :bits to the routing system, and M bits for mobility, unless M = 0.
>
> That's *exactly* why bus and routing MUST NOT require a specific size.
>

If you don't require a specific size "operational consistency with IPv4"
will inevitably lead to one /128 per device and NAT. As a host developer I
don't want to implement NAT, because it's bad for my users.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email