Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

otroan@employees.org Tue, 17 January 2017 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 AD93F129514 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:01:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.264
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=3.599, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 KXWLSleW-cru for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [198.137.202.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC91212945F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2017 10:01:10 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA3AD788F; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:01:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= selector1; bh=WWNYlEuJjofeApBBkNDfirUsGao=; b=XgJ17R2vb1ooOTMotL pWddwZpvIMV/iRyT3+lO8BLiD+FNr5UsHlwNvP05tavBIvOizbVh+Sw8zS9c1fV9 oMGrt5TjQ9LSntbVDbo6053WcGgfcFHaJgTu9C4XEYP0k7KVpJAIkFmBDZYidYvz YdtE5HX2nXyAbcYpebqxqldB8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s= selector1; b=YvhkMOjNzQPzDAo3jTmoSntXZsMUuld12id5SgwJwF5ihAgCNeS XxU6FTMGN6rgvPtgQqQcT7VWjgJwjLT3VqMN/EfwRFyz3oBYngoy5U4mHas2KjP8 BaWONIN/UZQ3ufx01lCfyS98vk+nmX/pxkNqis0I7HrqjBXq/YPd1MX8=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [46.228.50.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 852C8D788D; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCECE763FDE7; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:00:49 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0OsD4RcVUN+me98g6SJ=oaAr4HoqGtP88PTbMU_-kuGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:00:49 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <00D1565E-7119-4C52-AF06-95E3F4C5905A@employees.org>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0OsD4RcVUN+me98g6SJ=oaAr4HoqGtP88PTbMU_-kuGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Nl6yl1D0y4qlztq_W9ZcfUmKKCw>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:01:17 -0000

> What breaks if all IIDs in global unicast are not 64 bits?  Especially other than SLACC?  I would hope such a REQUIREMENT has a better motivation that "we said so".  Citing the "rest of the specifications" was simply my shorthand for I don't see what else breaks.

RFC7421, section 4.2.

There's also a set of political considerations, where one tries to achieve balance between the provider's desire to have effective aggregation and the end-users desire to have enough address space. We specifically want to avoid provider's charging by the address.

O.