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

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Sun, 26 February 2017 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
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 2563512A425; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:07:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NVHQ4ivnNms1; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp38.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E71012954D; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [114.254.44.112]) by app6 (Coremail) with SMTP id D8xvpgDn7QU0HLJYtInFAA--.1567S2; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:07:17 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <58B21C34.1000409@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:07:16 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
References: <CAKD1Yr0LHCT9_3QzaDY=XKWwSsA5CtE-4EqaQsp_Fp_3-Y56GA@mail.gmail.com> <30dda6a9-2683-8157-1b75-9aa154b8deb7@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1hSj0VQQ4vkxnnATxbW3eM2G3WK57OR-fNffydHz5BTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170223.094711.41666643.sthaug@nethelp.no>
In-Reply-To: <20170223.094711.41666643.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080806070809030000050205"
X-CM-TRANSID: D8xvpgDn7QU0HLJYtInFAA--.1567S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKry5AF4fuFy5Zw4xAr1rCrg_yoWfWrb_GF y5JF17Jw1UAF4UXw4jqr15Jr90yrW0qr1UJw18JrWfJr17Jrn8Jr18Gr43ZF9rXw15JryD JrWDGr18Jr1UXjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbOAYjsxI4VW3JwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWx JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r4j6F4UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVW8Jr 1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6c804VAFz4xC04v7Mc02F40ExcI2r2IE 04Ijxs4lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4 IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41l42xK82IYc2Ij 64vIr41lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1V AY17CE14v26r1q6r43MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAI cVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMI IF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2 KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7xUUeRBUUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/R35fmcoOjHxUH5EO3-SkDUxH9FQ>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, randy@psg.com, fgont@si6networks.com, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:07:58 -0000

sthaug@nethelp.no ??:
>> 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*.
>   

+1, xing

> Steinar Haug, AS2116
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>