Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 7 Mar. 2017 7:47 am, "Alexandre Petrescu"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

agreed with some of the things that I cut but I have one question.


Le 06/03/2017 à 19:46, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>
> If we allow the boundary to change, there is a near certainty that
> too-small subnets *will* be configured in some places,
>and is IETF a place to make recommendations of making big or small
> subnets?  Isnt it for the RIRs to make such recommendations?


Protocol designers have to make addressing design decisions, such as
the structure of addresses and special address value semantics. If
they didn't, then it would only be possible to have a single
forwarding method and no other semantics embedded in addresses for the
entire address space.

For example, if the entire address space is chosen to be destination
based unicast addresses, because only a single choice can be made,
there will be no possibility of any multicast forwarding, or a special
purpose loopback address or prefix.

It is also useful if they choose general defaults, so that things can
work without significant or ideally any configuration.

Imagine the situation of buying a car, and not being able to drive it,
because none of its tunable parameters had been set to reasonable
defaults. Mechanics wouldn't have a problem, and may enjoy the
experience of setting all the parameters to make the car work. The
rest of wouldn't find buying a car an easy experience at all.
Mechanics would lobby against making cars (literally) turn-key,
because they would be making money from setting all the parameters.

Regards,
Mark.