IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: EXPERIMENTAL Variable SLAAC draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 17 December 2020 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@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 4E6173A0E61 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:08:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 VEEAsEoA4gi1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05CC13A0E60 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kpxhk-0000FHC; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 19:08:44 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kpxhk-0000FHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL Variable SLAAC draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1kprB3-0000MbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <52d30fd9-6f77-49fc-780e-6fe7cfdcee8a@gmail.com> <m1kptjP-0000ETC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CABNhwV3j8GWZsAgRRyjYJypbcXW3VNbY2fBU8jsOEnZty--DkQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1kpumd-0000HxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <fa193fff-a9fe-7032-3a6e-7e1ee702004c@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:30:03 +0100 ." <fa193fff-a9fe-7032-3a6e-7e1ee702004c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 19:08:43 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/I4LnwyH91gLGz-nEV38xDMDwahg>
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:08:50 -0000

> > It could be that an experiment provides input in a discussion, but in
> > this case there seems to be no link between the discussion and the
> > experiment.
> 
> I dont understand?  There is clearly a link between the discussion
> and the experiment.

Currently RFC 4191 supports only 64-bit IIDs (with a specific exception).

The main worry of people against changing RFC 4191 is that where ISPs now
have to provide customers with a /64 (or shorter) some ISPs would in the
future provide way longer prefixes, bringing us back to square one.

> I am not looking at anything that contradicts standards.  Standards
> are valuable.

Given that there is no consensus to change RFC 4191 the obvious approach
is to avoid situations where you only have one /64.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email