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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 03:00 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 044C9129531 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 HEw6HBhgtSpI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (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 15F2C129518 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k127so90867198vke.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:41 -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=vaJdM2IoGtbKS1URHOZYaWinu9P3MfvfUFXo5gvu4IE=; b=EgasqFjiVkJgGH+EOLh70Rav44yhJvwNV/vjQFgdRXNdRhWV8CkV7ZlZuoqjDPyrey CYRtdK18dPSQMT5gVXdkT8Gc+Hg5aj5mPump9y+LhTEx8A30FdsBPIJOkD9Q0lcV5f/O ZiWWZZwiABBYHV7trcT+qJk7nAbTPuawovEsl1X8WNzt4CCTAy3osxl60hurGHluT9ac or0lyCZX1Ris5jc2E02IBJxgxx36wKnkI8XwHrY3WxrbRR6FNRHGQrTPQIETn1WfKQM5 j6UWJbSQwfNf/yDYRMkDrLly31cF8SpVpKoUsYwzMTtEhIA9swMDSx9MXD7cgHsd3Nly jSmg==
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=vaJdM2IoGtbKS1URHOZYaWinu9P3MfvfUFXo5gvu4IE=; b=SXvpJXV/VAckgRfWruGWT6kyrnKr3q79aPkIK4YY24NA/RzVMmwaByA/zdLJ0XJZFz HBAqjsG2zSPXkAnonNsu2hxRv0DqAu1BxsmTzfrLQ2Y0uDX9atiZb6pYS2sfbOnOdJcH eahT5PuiIxollUu6jp1xR+kJVbscA5m8+poY3MorH+o4jOSSpGPJjDt5LZ5XI3Lw2jaS W19lYZSIv8ztXII1EU9hI7uuv1cjH1oswwXSqH8bbfzWcwGBNxfEH58ZYz+mdPXJzH/2 7XeJ0J0PD5G/xhFw7W3t0wT6ZXtT4Vx3CMyXxyJXgOUFacQ61PEdLeVow9P3D1beAgnw u0xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lG18lk34kWtr7uPrLkaELtWyhfyZ90u/uY3etFRVL8nXXV+CImL6CMhvnOl6ilMP6Ce2/1D33WQ1409RR8
X-Received: by 10.31.170.15 with SMTP id t15mr12832578vke.6.1487732439988; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:00:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark>
References: <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com> <B4A4FFFD-A90D-4C26-BDBD-75555840CA22@employees.org> <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com> <44F7BEDA-CF11-4E1E-BA6F-88794DEC1AF7@employees.org> <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:00:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114322509ba963054915b3a9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WXskBulw86HA12Rt6OGJbhMG_4s>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@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, 22 Feb 2017 03:00:43 -0000

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:

> Those "thousands of interconnections" facilitate the communication between
> millions of those hosts.
>

But the configuration cost and management overhead is not proportional to
the hosts that are served by those interconnections, it is proportional to
the number of interconnections. A 10x100G peering interconnection that
serves X million hosts is one interface that has to be managed.

Have you considered that not all interconnections are equal? The type of
> interconnection I am mainly (but not exclusively) referring to is the
> interconnection between Autonomous Systems to facilitate the exchange of
> routing information using BGP-4. Autoconfiguration plays no role here,
> everything is configured explicitly. I'd argue that the use case is hardly
> comparable with a residential or mobile connection.
>

Those use cases are very well served by /127 for PNIs and /64s for Internet
exchanges. What's left?

As pointed out in this thread, real networks use all kinds of prefix
> lengths. Also, one doesn't renumber everything every time a new document
> comes out - you stick to things that work for you.
>

As discussed above, most links use /64.

Some vendors in this thread have admitted to strive to make things work
> with any prefix length, why is there then still a discussion that people
> must use /64 - when both vendors and users are not always doing so, for
> good reasons?
>

You're forgetting about host operating system developers and host users,
both of which benefit substantially to having a subnet size that is always
the same and never runs out of addresses.

I'm confident this discussion will eventually resolve itself and conclude
> that /64 is not the only valid prefix length, rigid positions rarely are
> attainable. Water can flow or it can crash.
>

Even if you're right, the place to have that discussion is not on this
document.