Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Address length needs

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/11/2020 à 18:12, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
> Fair enough.  Let's not use the phrase "race to the bottom"

[...]

> The premise in this discussion is that such an allocation would need 
> to be longer than /64.

No.

The premise would be that mobile operator continues to assign a /64 to a
smartphone but this smartphone would make a /65 out of it to put it on
its WiFi interface towards others in that hotspot.  These others would
use IIDs of length 63.

> I do not understand why.  If we are going to etend RA to support this
> (a request that seems reasonable) then why not do the extension in a
> way that respects the /64.

We have a solution proposal in which we try to extend RA to accommodate 
this longer-than-64 prefix on linux.  But it's certainly not the only 
way possible.

OpenBSD does it differently.  I think they dont add any new bit in RA 
and still implement that feature.  The problem I have with it is that 
few if any at all computers in cars are based on OpenBSD.

> It would seem to be sensible to look at solutions that do not
> violate MUSTs in existing specs before assuming solutions that change
> the MUST are necessary.

I certainly agree.

I think there are many ways out of that, including the status decisions.

Alex

> 
> Yours, Joel
> 
> PS: The airplane case is sufficiently different that I find it hard 
> to include it in the discussion.  In part because there is a LOT of 
> design that we are not free to alter in order to ask "is that the 
> right answer".  It is absolutely fair and necessary for folks to do 
> designs for their own problem space.  But those designs should 
> respect the limits that have been in place for more than 20 years. Or
> be prepared to have actual discussions of design choices.  (Tony and
> Fred mean ve3ry well, and they are doing a good job of describing the
> constraints ICAO has accepted.  But they can't change those 
> constraints or make commit to make changes.  Heck, it is not clear 
> they even agree with each other.)
> 
> On 11/8/2020 11:56 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> STARK, BARBARA H wrote on 08/11/2020 15:07:
>>> I agree. The "race to the bottom" argument is a 100% FUD 
>>> argument.
>> 
>> It's more than just FUD. The term "race to the bottom" is a 
>> politically charged phrase which is being used to shut down and 
>> obscure legitimate discussion about the complex issue of subnet 
>> size management on production networks.  Loaded language of this 
>> form has no place in an SDO working group.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail] Administrative Requests: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------