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

sthaug@nethelp.no Thu, 23 February 2017 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 AAA1F129CF9; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:47:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 ZulZzSqE5CxA; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B320129668; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87408E6067; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:47:11 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:47:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170223.094711.41666643.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: lorenzo@google.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1hSj0VQQ4vkxnnATxbW3eM2G3WK57OR-fNffydHz5BTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr0LHCT9_3QzaDY=XKWwSsA5CtE-4EqaQsp_Fp_3-Y56GA@mail.gmail.com> <30dda6a9-2683-8157-1b75-9aa154b8deb7@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1hSj0VQQ4vkxnnATxbW3eM2G3WK57OR-fNffydHz5BTw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/R1C0fBgENC62kJUeRWGvBcQ_TIs>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, randy@psg.com, fgont@si6networks.com, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:47:14 -0000

> But they do reflect reality. If you look at the whole Internet, think there
> are probably 1000 /64 links for every /65-126 link deployed today.

1000 /64 links for every /65-126 link may well be the case. However,
plenty of non /64 links exist, and I see no sign of them going
away. Claiming that all IIDs are 64 bit is simply incorrect, and
doesn't reflect operational reality no matter how hard you try to
make that claim.

At least the ISP I work for will make sure (through RFP requirements
etc) that /65-126 links *continue to work*.

Steinar Haug, AS2116