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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 14 June 2017 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 497521294F8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GghpEqa2GbsF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (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 5DD3012EBB6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4241024AE0B; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:06:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA23160072; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEFC160051; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id tK4aFjax17a0; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0C20160008; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97607BB0491; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:06:49 +1000 (AEST)
To: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <235143da452c4ff4aec39a26ba918e7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1489a50a-2616-f9ac-4109-16c595e15f90@gmail.com> <FA3032F9-F44B-45B4-9AFF-01EBC84F1448@employees.org> <b1c5c13d-ef69-ef30-546c-9178a2655caf@si6networks.com> <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>
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:59:10 +0200." <20170614095910.GE30896@gir.theapt.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:06:49 +1000
Message-Id: <20170614130649.E97607BB0491@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Z7SuLkh8cgDp0QefZs-BOJRd5iM>
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:08:15 -0000

In message <20170614095910.GE30896@gir.theapt.org>, Peter Hessler writes:
> On 2017 Jun 14 (Wed) at 11:52:27 +0200 (+0200), otroan@employees.org wrote:
> :Peter,
> :
> :> leaving a RECOMMENDED for /64 subnets is fine.  forcing it to be a MUST
> :> is not fine to me.  While the arguments in favour of /64 subnets are
> :> valid, there are many differently valid reasons to have non-/64 subnets,
> :> as mentioned many times in this (and other recent) threads.
> :
> :Which arguments matter to you?
> :What _problem_ does changing the 64 bit boundary solve for _you_?
> :
> :Ole
> 
> The problem is wasting space (I acknowledge your arguments, and reject
> them), uglyness of the addresses, and the fact that _my_ network is not
> _your_ network.
> 
> I'm already running non-/64 subnets on my personal networks.  I'm also
> running non-/64 subnets on my $work networks.
> 
> mandating /64 subnets in the _architectural specification_ is a bug,
> period.
> 
> IPv4 got rid of classful subnets in 1993, IPv6 can join the last century
> as well.

We got rid of classful subnets in 1993 *because* there were not
enough subnets to go around with them.  We didn't get rid of them
because as a concept they were bad.

Do you say that 18446744073709551616 subnets is too few to go
around?

2^64 address would have been enough to support the world using
variable length subnets.  IPng evaluated this and decided that it
was not a good idea as variable length subnets really are too
complicated.  Instead IPng went initially with 128 bit addresses
and, initially, /80 subnets so that we didn't have to deal with
variable sized subnets.  This was later changed to /64 bit subnets
to handle 64 bit mac addresses.

Mark

> -- 
> "A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line today.  The results blacked
> out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon."
> 		-- Steel City News
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org