Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

["Mudric, Dusan" <[e-mail]>]

Would it help if the problem statemen clarifies that:

- There is no race to the bottom. We are not trying to solve ISP problem by allowing longer than 64bit prefixes,
- It is not about restricting the ISP prefix assignments to minimum one 64bit prefix, by imposing 64bit SLAAC prefix limitation on the clients,
- Minimum of one 64bit prefix limitation should be imposed by other network elements, rather than clients. Edge routers can block >64bit prefixes,
- Clients should be enabled to use >64bit prefixes for SLAAC to address X, Y, Z problems, and
- Operators engineering >64bit subnets need to evaluate how low is the IID; should maximum prefix length be 70 or 96 or ... (for security or other reasons)?

Dusan

On 2020-11-06, 9:15 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu" <[e-mail]> wrote:



Le 06/11/2020 à 11:36, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 6/11/20 07:04, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> I have been reminded in private about 'race to the bottom'.
>> 
>> In the Variable SLAAC solution draft we do touch on the problem:
>> 
>>> The "race to the bottom problem" - is the problem where allowing
>>>  prefixes longer than 64 to be used in SLAAC will lead to 65, 66
>>> and so on, up to 127 and 128 allocations.  At that point the
>>> bottom would be reached and thus impossible to extend the network
>>> further.
>> 
>> A solution is then proposed in section 8 titled "Greater than 64
>> bit prefix usage by ISPs is strictly prohibited".
> 
> Then we'd need an RFC for formally creating the Internet
> police/militia. (possibly a very bad timing for an already bad
> idea).

So we need to attenuate that 'strictly prohibited' wording and improve a
way forward.

Alex

> 
> Thanks,