IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 BF3D612751F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 O-LP_fcXxvKn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 95111126D73 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v52LYnYL047252; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:49 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.172]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v52LYfhX047211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:41 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efac::8988:efac) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:39 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:34:40 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
CC: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Thread-Topic: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Thread-Index: AQHS26olAbwdN6IbFk+uhX2pi2Ws/qISErGAgAAFyYCAAHFvgP//jAag
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 21:34:40 +0000
Message-ID: <16298890ffe643e4b2e35bcfe31c2e84@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau28M1cifeHWjnVCdAz1J56ek6cQb2PPSkiyD+VGVuJGcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau28M1cifeHWjnVCdAz1J56ek6cQb2PPSkiyD+VGVuJGcw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/R-fnNPexJBV_3wr2We7J7_V0iP4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 21:34:52 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Farmer

> The actual distance between the positions here is rather small, I
> believe we are basically standing nose to nose on different sides
> of the same line, which is /64.

Well .... sort of.

> I think we all agree that /64 is the normal subnet size in most
> situations, in other words the default, especially for subnets with
> general purpose hosts,

Except that the consequences of all that e-mail (my response to Lorenzo, echoed by Fred), would be that even a SLAAC, without a hard /64 boundary, would be very nice. A subject for another day.

Home gateways assigned a /64, smartphone-provided mobile hotspots, I'm not sure such examples can be forever relegated to the category of corner cases?

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email