IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: the race to the bottom problem

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 08 November 2020 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C0AC53A0E82 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:56:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3ABYpBg332vb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (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 628DA3A0E80 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id h6so4010143pgk.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:56:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tGkXr2yAf02ZAniWQQ7Itc1WK3qL3Djf98WwrQxTN0M=; b=qKCFFvtYcL6ClEol68WsqDVzzgI/Nh3eVeUVcltOSEI8gOofm8uRffzN9QAZkHHCOF zERyCs5Y0Lhq64oXO4sytqtnTAZEtTCNNKtOtNCprV4fnp54PXAUdH3fSEWbN+QVC8mm zQjkLjbKdmgYoR5BqQy4fuPWaE16FETIerSxg/+pK07k9cFOiacHDd6rWLYgS7HO0tKH CjxHDu8nV8N+xGzEooN1KwuQAFNPLskZEb8GVyKepnAw0gN5Fj5NfBxbpd7aYSJK+bow kqPvIJOJB+9WjzrIiI0MaZ+AezbsNotKNbPftvFtUy/knotqn66r3/3ZD0nsfES3y23U j34Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tGkXr2yAf02ZAniWQQ7Itc1WK3qL3Djf98WwrQxTN0M=; b=GdeM9RBN/qU3yfsVMbusTD9Puyp3OBeQOOpjS76OfKE8OBT7HxbMoL5o3R5/+sJG2N hlnn5cfGK3H2mQ7rFUAExZa+ceDefIE0UNuYyZfiW1hsIUV9bwr2ib4N7eZaPEucXVG6 x2JRumWP6/v+wNVscNBZ1aeewsGyp4C3G8WUz/OTO8mGTHlIOrrpGMrRzixPXc5SpoOo hdOmiKHzP5uS6GrkBEO9BvQqTIgFgemkolr2mXt/HwiSnoLd8fb87UNnLIMpoP1mebGI aOywb1hHbUS+Z7zuJdh5ymDv2CFMJeTFSFoVBiPr2bgTz2uvXDaRsTCKjnJG0Ml++MOm rHhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302WRDulwlCMP4tUdPGR9qgRtGQZl3gR/sOqEsVi0dVCGlDFOF9 9PDUcMH5IJ6CPZBz5iA5hexdcG2HgGq/fA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGGMaXFmY2HSITS2jlgqu6Fdv1odAn08LEeNhQY2m10EKG+8k2+x/b+9BOzLCUQIXfPPh9mQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6701:: with SMTP id b1mr7843261pgc.59.1604800576544; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q23sm6895160pfg.192.2020.11.07.17.56.14 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: the race to the bottom problem
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60a15726-ff04-a202-4df9-79a6c6f33540@foobar.org> <99B762B0-0370-4B5B-9075-F688284D614A@fugue.com> <190c5cf3-9034-4e38-235c-620ecd916750@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr0xnWqFT8PSLxQfF8VnSqX72QEcUv7jt9KHdmZ2Mj=D5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6da066c0-8e58-9bca-fb74-f2204731295a@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 14:56:12 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0xnWqFT8PSLxQfF8VnSqX72QEcUv7jt9KHdmZ2Mj=D5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LfOxdb8R6wO3Ek3TbJLIwlkVLjw>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 01:56:19 -0000

On 08-Nov-20 14:35, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2020, 08:24 Nick Hilliard, <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
> 
>     this is the problem: I did read it, just like I've read through all the
>     other threads on this topic over the last several years. There was a
>     repeat of the usual speculation, generalisation and echo-chamber
>     mechanics which have characterised this discussion at the ietf since
>     more-or-less forever.
> 
>     You said: "we’ve already seen clear pressure to race to the bottom".
> 
>     So I politely ask you again: please provide citations to data.  Then we
>     can have a discussion.
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll bite. Once. :-)
> 
> Here's some data:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-v6ops-4.pdf
> 
> says that 29% of survey responses says the LAN prefix size is /64. This is despite pretty much every IETF and RIR document saying that ISPs should assign more.

There's some 2010-vintage data at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6036#section-2.5 suggesting that even then, there was a variety of practice including some /64-only operators. And: "Mobile operators offer /64 in accordance with 3GPP, but at least one would like to be allowed to offer /128 or /126."

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email