Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 20 February 2017 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 15A5A1294FC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:01:14 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 1oef6uhtgEnn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29FF1294D6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6B449; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:01:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1487602861; bh=4rxnNiXzyOwRTrahZr3 R6MNCCkkYxU6YxwHjjA9l2l4=; b=YrUUb72gFNqdZ7KV+fRlx7/C1+OoVer7cBh P6gdsQ6hsVe1NelZKLYfM0XH6gKmE/tTSasf4KeVLAoUufXJtNj3vJSNAAqaJ596 qF1OLZvDQEv+aSlxTgF3lgrPzJFHcs0fbhHW2bnuzOxX9KIUD2riGcTOgZjWaV42 NqZcqs2M=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 3hFi2tWGR0Y6; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:01:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2003:8:27:8700:b4b0:ab55:780f:f55e] (unknown [IPv6:2003:8:27:8700:b4b0:ab55:780f:f55e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFA5948; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:01:00 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <FEFB44E2-A360-4822-8AE4-DD2CA8F1811A@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AE42B1A1-4CBF-431F-A215-B6035EB15EDA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:01:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5f6130ca-671e-867c-7a98-a399aaedceb4@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com> <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org> <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com> <BA018A61-1390-4775-ACB9-61C66D7A34FB@google.com> <567281BF-DD55-4E46-9977-4575561A83C9@steffann.nl> <F4868F7E-C970-4342-8A89-8087B9D33911@steffann.nl> <5f6130ca-671e-867c-7a98-a399aaedceb4@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PbeLZHm8l6is8QJXc8aH9PnvkNg>
Cc: 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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:01:14 -0000

Hi,

> Which brings back the question of why /64.

I think after this many years the answer is "because". If IPv6 had been designed from the start with /96 LANs then that would have been the standard. But today /64 is the standard, a clear standard size makes working with IPv6 easier, and we have enough addresses to actually do this. So is /64 the only technical choice that would work? No. Is it a choice made in the past that we should stick to (with well-informed exceptions where appropriate): Yes. It has advantages beyond pure technical necessity that make it useful.

But there MUST be room for people to use use something else than a /64. While it's good to have a default size that works well, forcing /64 though people's throat when they know what they are doing and need something else must remain possible. (this is both me speaking as an IPv6 teacher and as a network engineer :)

Cheers,
Sander