IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 16 June 2017 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.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 2D747129BC4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kmRc1U82uJJ4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7833E129BBB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dLqbv-0000GBC; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:44:23 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dLqbv-0000GBC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <391c730c-fa75-7596-bb6b-383ea6583131@gmail.com> <0b57c999-b5df-8a44-e3fd-55cee628f3f3@si6networks.com> <20170614092327.GB30896@gir.theapt.org> <E61AFFF1-0354-41EE-8E11-50433B26BAF7@employees.org> <20170614094034.GC30896@gir.theapt.org> <A7502902-245B-499B-916B-28630CD5A824@employees.org> <20170614095910.GE30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr2C74Nd+NSe5MfTpaQ0z1HSotVXCohK9uDYc0sqR3rMLg@mail.gmail.com> <edbf9bf8-cd15-c0e6-f0f8-19f96f6333b2@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1X12T10qsUtFau2neUnA0yVnOkMsAk5UOB-KjS7qxNTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170616050718.wbpb2oqhfrvsk6fv@hanna.meerval.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:07:18 +0200 ." <20170616050718.wbpb2oqhfrvsk6fv@hanna.meerval.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:44:22 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Youw9KwplbIYhHk_Nj6lGCppjNU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:44:27 -0000

>Even if it is as low as 0.1%, has it ever occurred to you that that
>small number might serve a majority of IPv6 users in non-trivial
>matters? For example, their ability to reach each other? It is a shame
>to see such blatant disregard for this group of IPv6 users.

Job,

I'm curious what use you have for SLAAC with prefixes longer than /64.

Using pseudo random IIDs for router interfaces seems like a complete
maintainance nightmare to me. Or are you talking about other infrastructure
devices?

The most contentious point in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00 is that
it tries to change the IID length used for SLAAC. 

As far as I know, any type of address assignment that is not SLAAC already
supports arbitrary prefix lengths, and therefore is compatible with the
goal of this draft.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email