IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 03 June 2017 04:29 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 A5BF51294F5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-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 S5Ss825TTlUi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (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 32183126CBF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id y4so54386686uay.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 21:29:38 -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=ayZ0YpfrD1g5t34sH8/oy479354fJvx1nlwDfBNJe+g=; b=gpc9t1woGvaiXmeMdPfli5utzSOIyXmkRHJC+luJHH+EeIgfgZFprFegqGTG7fCMRA kBCR7PuJg2u/q2kEwZgmJpSsltwqqkSmzXzMF741Zx2tnCaKmcjYq2mTmXlcQgPhNOdu AxHre6NznZM1j10syiRqgA3SdRHz8P05ounHVnHTx3FOo7361aKWYizLAPog2lTpugkV mCjEgEWoGLPy3g4SaYIuMjWQPNxeZceITr1fsoGjBsUP49XqQ0PalTUl2ac6EsnqLRsf Mmp5SbcbIbfCZ7HXkQQlTnvaAeaPxKtwk+1rY1XPiHmr6ZFPMepNKvVuWkrpDh4dLbLu HmzQ==
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=ayZ0YpfrD1g5t34sH8/oy479354fJvx1nlwDfBNJe+g=; b=KTDAuDJZio/10c6U+edG7yWIKPbmjsF6WgmV+t0GoYjEmggwm8BTAaZiKdFEXyYz1b 5gsIcJkq/hatJbmX0L30kQw8aywZTwrk2R/dEO8Csoso3KuKfix6RXD+zNW879UWgJ+Y mmqPQMDa706AMftvGWJN30cxu9HOa2V8xcBwn0iBcfZVOI3Tw1n9o0WWDmPe2jJ/NKMb McJa1IoazNqH9BuXQLB9IUB+TT6dnQymGNrLKJSqPD8XSErs956OvV+4ttyvVDL3LKS6 gzrSia4F9I6rPFO4lxVI/6EaKkrUitgNlkYpy1eZMhS8B4ygbd80qehSfN3iImWeFw9C ciLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcB3UCB7CUC3qFvP1s0NazapqM0WMXSwxZ6smp8Wpchbl8xblhJx wcxck1cqE/ATLZSCDP/3WUM8//pho0CfN+4=
X-Received: by 10.176.17.228 with SMTP id q36mr3885288uac.20.1496464177235; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 21:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.138 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.168.138 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C6696427-E3BD-4C5A-9A2F-A979CE063C45@google.com>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <20170602145655.msfjw35qhoev4sm2@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr3gqFgq3dxFaBEV++q5cgx1AHzFLGRJ50DYJjVE69C7iA@mail.gmail.com> <f2260ee557014429a1fef32de040547b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <C6696427-E3BD-4C5A-9A2F-A979CE063C45@google.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 13:29:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1zvyVbcQjFNDV7SzcLsG2igpSg+jst4AR9KbYstPWjTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e75fcb46061055106b7d2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HPI3HCytwMucWJRu2fgf6cluV_w>
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: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 04:29:40 -0000

On Jun 3, 2017 04:17, "james woodyatt" <jhw@google.com> wrote:

I once believed IPv4/NAT was about preserving scarce number resources. I
now think that was wrong. It was always about optimizing rents across
differing classes of subscribers even when the extracted resource on which
the rents are derived is practically unlimited. In this one respect, IPv6
is no different than IPv4. As a purely technical matter, the rent MUST flow.


That doesn't actually work. When all the applications have built NAT
traversal mechanisms, anything more than one IP address per location
becomes worth nothing. At that point the extra rent is gone, and everybody
loses because the system is less capable, less robust, and harder to
configure than it would have been without NAT.

And in fact, that's what happens in IPv4 today. Putting an entire corporate
campus with tens of thousands of users behind one public IPv4 address is
standard practice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email