IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 15 June 2017 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.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 DC0FF12D574 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4lj_LAQRUU0a for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF313129BBD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dLQwv-0000HYC; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:20:21 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dLQwv-0000HYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <E02C4C99-155A-4358-A845-F00F8BB071C1@employees.org> <b3ca5271-21b1-ab33-2dff-82735ebe9128@gmail.com> <235143da452c4ff4aec39a26ba918e7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1489a50a-2616-f9ac-4109-16c595e15f90@gmail.com> <FA3032F9-F44B-45B4-9AFF-01EBC84F1448@employees.org> <b1c5c13d-ef69-ef30-546c-9178a2655caf@si6networks.com> <391c730c-fa75-7596-bb6b-383ea6583131@gmail.com> <0b57c999-b5df-8a44-e3fd-55cee628f3f3@si6networks.com> <20170614092327.GB30896@gir.theapt.org> <E61AFFF1-0354-41EE-8E11-50433B26BAF7@employees.org> <20170614094034.GC30896@gir.theapt.org> <A7502902-245B-499B-916B-28630CD5A824@employees.org> <6c4157da7039438981db0f4ba46df916@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0dU+1rHo7LB2k7MOhJ+UOB5t7v11T2WYa+VtLnNC-7ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:00:12 +0900 ." <CAKD1Yr0dU+1rHo7LB2k7MOhJ+UOB5t7v11T2WYa+VtLnNC-7ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:20:19 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FhpLF5IqVUNdO7bPA-KmjFn-bco>
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: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:20:27 -0000

>SLAAC doesn't work unless the network provides enough address space to make
>collisions vanishingly unlikely.

Indeed. So any RFC that makes smaller pseudo random IIDs possible has to
have at least a section that analyses collision probabilities. And set
a lower limit that is generally safe.

Just leaving it to an operator to figure out that a /112 prefix will
sometimes lead to an IoT device failing due to an address collision is
extremely poor protocol design.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email