Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 19 January 2017 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 7A122129421 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 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_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 vLZK7wiOym7V for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E28FF1293D6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3938F9DD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JMtPmb5M1gtI for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:31:19 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f198.google.com (mail-ua0-f198.google.com [209.85.217.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01BEF983 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:31:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f198.google.com with SMTP id i68so35322397uad.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=89G8cq6DhJDRzPzbQkLVHEfBUXT34h2mvxmi/4RxoIg=; b=LZCa6/NFtxaaPCIA5z7EEaD98t/Xd/jc3jsZlN93Hc0yKs7CdBFuZzsVmtDh69MRkU UWUwD9Eu6CG5WaQ9ebHG6itKn2oXflUp4BcI6trKEOXTOIJaSsfAiUNZViCcowN3alvq yH5GUhDV7+e+r6EMnRfvDPh+aPNHNtpuJ8JJlZYXXD1JaivwYKeQzP5lJEc5RnRYMVCw 7STx/SBCH6xbh9jiEGrZHB3RjvvRaFpY3xUf6PsRE3ZGtaAQGeAcM9RRXvmUTvD/ip6t zI95Nr2pxAmDulZye4HXDVIP4HJoJHfX7rPhBLNvMscb724jJRpZ3wLIy0ohMd9b6ENf oe7Q==
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=89G8cq6DhJDRzPzbQkLVHEfBUXT34h2mvxmi/4RxoIg=; b=D/EJlb805TWL65QdqCqOVtlfPWVo7FnbAkS0mt3ovj9eer7fhny5xdzOPC+UpIZt3d 4UY2ysnRxJch3cxEGSFclb0V/AncaBl/eO3DM2Fd53XwxgHpUqyovVbi2azRdvORgFu3 O0kOdqyCZ/BEDVlv597CGBgBM8KOir1wXQrYC8FOBNqpwCt0XSSsGi5Zz+k8uBnh9F5Y V8L6EVypMQY1uglcbtzW70tIJv2wMDHF4DJAmLPvN1WZ9Wuw4r0ZR6Bz46SgRDaOuDmI 2Y6L9fJMfw+uAguKmtuXvULFjCEmhmmrSSheroIsS1JBS6SOdZWbANzz2Vnfyi3XWne8 BNdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKHTfZ9R4/AuOi/Ge9xyIYROv9Js/TPtfzXo9RN1uca1FyIdrMufm3TD/+YOKfQvohi5Q4WD5Qe0zVw4uXkapZQHt2eGgcKry8C7nJudAnLuPruhyUgR3JDQ1ioh0NZfPIaEkpMYgCqAYY=
X-Received: by 10.176.91.155 with SMTP id y27mr6391510uae.151.1484868677575; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.91.155 with SMTP id y27mr6391504uae.151.1484868677403; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148B5BCE-ED32-4FA8-83BA-48F3F4149396@employees.org>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0OsD4RcVUN+me98g6SJ=oaAr4HoqGtP88PTbMU_-kuGQ@mail.gmail.com> <00D1565E-7119-4C52-AF06-95E3F4C5905A@employees.org> <CAN-Dau0Fkb-M8VM9iL9xwy89bir5PhNHJ3D1VFrnNppVXNyeOg@mail.gmail.com> <562C040F-EC30-49C6-849F-F63BA22233C7@employees.org> <595c73ef-ffa4-6f9e-d810-c37ea8dc2c0d@gmail.com> <148B5BCE-ED32-4FA8-83BA-48F3F4149396@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:31:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2ygz+iTtZ_hLLPMPs-tVYjeQUaknLeCj82ba938DZ9-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f8ec80e455a05467aee2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YoWOlibKhvwe80tUs1xPZUPY9_k>
Cc: 6man WG <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: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:31:21 -0000

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:08 AM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
> Given that what we are left with is policy, I think it is quite harsh of
> you to declare that there is no consensus on the current text on the IETF
> list.
> There are good technical arguments for why each host needs more than a
> single address, and if we end up in a situation similar to IPv4 where each
> address used has to be justified, then we have lost. There is a justified
> fear that allowing the 64 bit boundary to slide, we will end up in a
> situation similar to IPv4 addressing. E.g. charging per address.
>

I'm a little worried that your fighting yesterday's battle.  To be honest,
I'm less worried about charing for more than one IP address. I'm much more
worried about charging for more than one subnet. In fact, I'm worried a
hard and inflexible boundary at /64 reinforces a model for charging for
more than one subnet.

If that happens would you prefer people use NTPv6 or NAT66?  I'd prefer a
more flexible subnet boundary, that allows the18 quadrillion addresses in a
/64 to be broken into smaller subnets.

Furthermore, we are talking about giving individual devices their own
subnets.  I like this model and with today's scale that will be fine.  But,
longer-term this has me worried, especially if we keep a inflexible /64
boundary.

This is where the IETF has to perform a fine balancing act. On one side
> ensure that the 64 bit boundary stands, at the other side ensure that all
> implementors do not enshrine a hard-coded boundary in their implementations.
>

Ok, are you willing to put that in the document?  The /64 requirement, is a
political consideration, not a technical one.  Because other than /64
subnets are clearly technically possible, we have evidence of it in RFC
7421.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================