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

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 5:48 AM Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:

> On 2017 Jun 04 (Sun) at 20:55:30 +0900 (+0900), Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> :On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> :
> :> M bits for locator of physical device in mobile network
> :> N bits for identifier of physical device
> :> 128 - M - N bits for delegated addresses by the physical device
> :>
> :> I don't see a workable solution if device is assigned a /64. Am I
> :> missing something?
> :>
> :
> :There is no workable solution if you want to assign 64 bits to the bus, 64
> :bits to the routing system, and M bits for mobility, unless M = 0.
>
> That's *exactly* why bus and routing MUST NOT require a specific size.
>

I would say this level of mobility or "nomadacity" has proven through the
years to NOT work at the network level in the INTERNET.

Just like ipsec has has failed where TLS has succeed, same for Mobile IP,
PMIP, and so on. The narror waist of the internet does not include
mobility, especially at a level that is transparent to the user.

Just like always on dynamic ipsec for security, fine grain mobility was not
destine to be included in the routing system.  Best to let go of this
usecase rather than tilting more at the windmill.

>
> --
> What is a magician but a practising theorist?
>                 -- Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>