Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 02 March 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 BB92D129593 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 gAF0dQKKxh_6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 186481294C9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BE34B; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:49:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:from:from :subject:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:received :received; s=mail; t=1488476985; bh=52ZGTs/V9eO1vmOAxcWwa6neB2BR eo2qAsYTaEKhsnc=; b=dl3f6SYOFvqWlo1hCpLaMjlleRcCe36CAs2nHhLbyahx dTwQB/II35wOBhVZqQ1jTHBTyAlfVlvRs2pYON8abc9Xzok+Cv2GuHpkTgy89WBo ivf3rnWA9Pr1vX9BFWxF9KQTEq6ps2+o+x4675HHNtlAOr0shIRlZtxsyzmQz6Y=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id urkoK3vUFBtD; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:49:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:15bd:d61c:a52a:9afb] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:15bd:d61c:a52a:9afb]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52EE84A; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:49:45 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E648C9C-A120-4147-BD6C-7124FE377D54"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <ee3b73b1-64fd-6fef-bc0a-53b325f0bcfd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:49:41 +0100
Message-Id: <2D14A5DE-E836-4C40-9B92-4A3D6BB3BC01@steffann.nl>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302105206.15fc3886@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr2AYaAQMuGZiKXYwKdgz1dzKs5fc5bm7hQjpuq3O_V8gQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170302121104.36ddda4e@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr1cNihxMVHjY2j7mcCNU2TE0X6-0p2mDNCBVVUcUbU20Q@mail.gmail.com> <20170302153611.36506f85@envy> <CAKD1Yr1SbdE-i-oGhi2kEFBWTOi_-FzgVdMYkMWjCEtw0MRRMg@mail.gmail.com> <ee3b73b1-64fd-6fef- bc0a-53b325f0bcfd@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_J57aPSWSEMhPBJY9LnxraGva3M>
Cc: 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, 02 Mar 2017 17:49:52 -0000

Hi,

> Ok, but maybe it's the operators running out of /64s, no?

No

> I speculate, but I couldn't imagine a cellular operator dedicating a /40, i.e. 2^24 /64s, i.e. the equivalent of a 10.x Class A, to cover its end users.    (the cellular operator I work with dedicates a /47 to cover its end users).

A /40 is nothing. An operator get's a *minimum* of a /32, and in RIPE land can get a /29 by just asking for it. A /40 is less than 1/2048th of a small operator's address space.

Cheers,
Sander