IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 18 November 2020 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 805493A13A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cYzZa5VJmYsL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E263A139E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAF9389BF; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:56:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TA_IQ3mJV4nf; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:56:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8635E389BE; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:56:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FBB6A7; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:55:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tony Whyman <tony.whyman@mccallumwhyman.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0opvOAjOGn_UAg=3mzjxuoSUPS7_01gSGQH742z0zZKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <202011151920.0AFJKN9U003337@mail2.mwassocs.co.uk> <3d26bffe-b6c9-4ed7-6135-a515f9902fd7@gmail.com> <m1keOTi-0000EGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2XTRJpR9S=ZXOXOD6PkxLTD7KAzN-CwoGhMUmSQTp0Zg@mail.gmail.com> <2b54eeb9-0b8a-8c29-11f9-e50673a7fb85@mccallumwhyman.com> <CAN-Dau0opvOAjOGn_UAg=3mzjxuoSUPS7_01gSGQH742z0zZKw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:55:36 -0500
Message-ID: <20771.1605671736@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZFYIM9_jKQqAfLDTyy1ehCslYrk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 18 Nov 2020 03:55:40 -0000

David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    >> On 17/11/2020 02:55, David Farmer wrote:
    >> > ou mention that airplanes can fall out of the sky, it would be really
    >> > bad if an airplane every fell out of the sky, or collided with another
    >> > airplane, because of an address conflict.
    >>
    >> I should probably make it clear that irrespective of whatever addressing
    >> plan we come up with - this will never happen. There is strength in
    >> depth in the system.
    >>

    > I don't actually think something as simple as an address conflict would
    > ever be the primary cause of an aircraft incident. However, it is not that
    > difficult to conceive of situations where such an address conflict,
    > causing

I was reading that: The address conflict confuses a human.  Who does the wrong thing.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email