IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 18 November 2020 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 CD6D03A136A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 zkjJeICYW9II for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6D43A1369 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155F9389BF; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:31:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lyS7AW5h-TEy; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB4D389BE; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA846A7; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:30:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yS9gL9wQcfPb7Bes+ao=an2Lp2r5eJo97kcb4y2si=gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <202011151920.0AFJKN9U003337@mail2.mwassocs.co.uk> <3d26bffe-b6c9-4ed7-6135-a515f9902fd7@gmail.com> <m1keOTi-0000EGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <29299.1605477799@localhost> <CAO42Z2yS9gL9wQcfPb7Bes+ao=an2Lp2r5eJo97kcb4y2si=gg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:30:36 -0500
Message-ID: <14693.1605670236@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/G2Xx5m5pgs32NL1o20tRwxZQlq0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 18 Nov 2020 03:30:45 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Asking for GUA space implies attached to the big-I Internet when the ULA
    > space exists for non-Internet connected devices.

No, This is JUST SO WRONG. This is IPV4 SCARCITY THINK.

IPv6 is for all users, not just those in some entities routing table.

ULA is second class in many ways: no reverse, no RPKI, no whois, etc.
ULA-C would be slightly less wrong.   Would you support doing that?

    > It is when GUAs are being requested, and the RFC4291 address format is
    > being ignored. It's not IPv6 and can't be called "IPv6" if it doesn't
    > comply with the IPv6 specifications.

    > GUAs have two properties:

    > - globally unique address
    > - provide potential global reachability to any and all global Internet
    > destinations

- show up in databases like whois
- can have RPKI credentials
- can have RPSL policies attached
- can be announced in BGP to consenting peers without prior arrangement

When we designed IPv6, we assumed that everyone would get some, even if they
didn't connect.

    > ULAs only have the first property.
    > If a device doesn't need the second property, the device doesn't need a GUA.

Again, what is this business of trying to ration IPv6?
Do they really need 39 bits? I don't know.

Our entire Ipv6 architecture ENCOURAGES entities to ask for the amount of space
that they think they might need over the lifetime of their effort and NEVER
COME BACK for more.

That's why /64 for IIDs, and /48s for every site.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email