Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mudric, Dusan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Would it help if the problem statemen clarifies that:
>
> - There is no race to the bottom. We are not trying to solve ISP problem
> by allowing longer than 64bit prefixes,
> - It is not about restricting the ISP prefix assignments to minimum one
> 64bit prefix, by imposing 64bit SLAAC prefix limitation on the clients,
> - Minimum of one 64bit prefix limitation should be imposed by other
> network elements, rather than clients. Edge routers can block >64bit
> prefixes,
> - Clients should be enabled to use >64bit prefixes for SLAAC to address X,
> Y, Z problems, and
> - Operators engineering >64bit subnets need to evaluate how low is the
> IID; should maximum prefix length be 70 or 96 or ... (for security or other
> reasons)?


   Good points.  I think that would be helpful and that we can clarify that
that we are not changing the current BCOP RIPE-690 for allocation
guidelines for mobile operators which today states /64.    As for privacy
concerns when connected to the internet for segmentation behind a handset
we can provide guidelines on minimum IID length recommended when directly
connected to the internet.  For operators from an infrastructure
perspective mostly static has been done for years vlsm down to P2P links
/127 as the standard.  The key here is endpoint hosts and IID sizing
minimum recommendation for privacy when directly connected to the internet.

>
>
> Dusan
>
> On 2020-11-06, 9:15 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu" <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 06/11/2020 à 11:36, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> > On 6/11/20 07:04, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> >> I have been reminded in private about 'race to the bottom'.
> >>
> >> In the Variable SLAAC solution draft we do touch on the problem:
> >>
> >>> The "race to the bottom problem" - is the problem where allowing
> >>>  prefixes longer than 64 to be used in SLAAC will lead to 65, 66
> >>> and so on, up to 127 and 128 allocations.  At that point the
> >>> bottom would be reached and thus impossible to extend the network
> >>> further.
> >>
> >> A solution is then proposed in section 8 titled "Greater than 64
> >> bit prefix usage by ISPs is strictly prohibited".
> >
> > Then we'd need an RFC for formally creating the Internet
> > police/militia. (possibly a very bad timing for an already bad
> > idea).
>
> So we need to attenuate that 'strictly prohibited' wording and improve a
> way forward.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD