Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 45998129956 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:10:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 OJYrdxEinyPa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA95F126D74 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id t8so6518497vke.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 02:10:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iHtGWgvFirjTvz1z5Kr1G9vUfflxBnf1iw35t8Hnff0=; b=gdNtMCPUtzAlmbikB1eSugcuDNf3wCXNuHAAjHQ0ZvIMAtgf+fQWM0fTtXbfC+vUXX L9CqnCDcYjnB2pkId4yb0MwHKx4q2kdRTw0ym7UpbE/+48bMM3M5tEasOJBIGuPXHju4 rcJVDa6CEC/OVJjPmjfPkfkjYqL0QwGTeiEYj068/YZlmWEQgjVAxX1QNzWGDYKq7fB+ CHjpeiTIMKVptqIC9SVRUY69tNL0lW3d5f9bi2O1AOpWV8Lf45Y7ENld8psre/lHzWuG SKFFKAeKClYIUwglGAKNkP4oEnXwt5z5+/xcq1j3VQebmP4bqt5yJEVHVofePLCCtDWA JgeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iHtGWgvFirjTvz1z5Kr1G9vUfflxBnf1iw35t8Hnff0=; b=OfSQoepF4DKLAu6vMlF8OF95vL5ULsmt9MzQg7M97pdUaKTIN4qt4zlf92s0lQwTCb yZuO6el/ZJQsLg3sy7iw7tb5chzgqqsPlsmgpxKUwXA7hWaUJWR9m0ysPc7wL9yHARMp Iic8U7emTyUAIf2xfI3jhZTkjlKdiqc6h2u7nyqn1dLPjtslzI7wPSHaZ7qZo4mqr2jT TB9VkGssu1rSaNJ0zNiJCoHWZc5ogQIJTr9VSdpeHQBtinVshq/VYteZpwJpHK7mB+S/ hXtcp88FBdc+6IE4X0CRt/tvhKgnc4W4sFmibTMiPSwd6Ql9l+hdBF4j7r++D78E/rVi eMWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nA9JpCrwywTgDuBKJZjtnd+7Zc4rAesm4KP+SJ5ctyQ0ssnf+9S77Q5VBBsegx/+Ke8jGwuflj5Kb5optn
X-Received: by 10.31.170.15 with SMTP id t15mr20498vke.6.1488363013824; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 02:10:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:09:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:09:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0qwwfH2a2ND7Va7tHigVTQ=iWkEwicxhTYpjuYMJnARg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11432250bcd24d0549a8841a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W2cq8BwHdfOecNEPv_qZ78QcvPs>
Cc: James Woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:10:16 -0000

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:04 PM, <sthaug@nethelp.no>; wrote:

> Which, as pointed out repeatedly in this discussion, means ignoring
> the real world cases of non 64 bit IIDs. Thus I completely disagree
> with the "should continue to be".
>

Ok, I'll bite. In all seriousness, what are the concrete use cases of
limiting subnet sizes? So far I've heard:

   - "I only need 3 addresses" (but not "I only need 3 addresses and here's
   why I can't accept 2^64 instead of 3")
   - ND exhaustion attacks

What else? You don't have to list them here, a pointer to a previous
message will do.