Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 307281295AE; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ctpqUv0cmkjE; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (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 F28A112959E; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x71so230048qkb.3; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3T+Ck6hb1vRglALBng4l2dQMovAuxR5M7Zzvgucm7pM=; b=YppFuGWNqsmHLkoasxhhozK3WDOMmdJBUD9NmV0GMQfohedHpDs40gxvtxMZCB61TW 4vkW7CboIH0ES9Po4gfIR/0hkW0fJFV/KYh5Os+naZYWYHVbPtqcYFHXolvWD6txHxd4 wkNrtHqajmvCyYXEaD6vUxqJTrl6XrOVbhI0xCT0xWQDczo8eBy27J0kgRdHcO25QWyr j2LoIleKswD5zZy8juR3G1UPVIA60qqIBC6kihqGSYIK2hflsdoCz1BAdKgqcc8vv1tu C78iI70CJ0yvV9OYT1t2BKWrxmIkzQMPRyqPGfJWKM+GQu0Ta5vaZt1kOKwaeQgkWbzk kh1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3T+Ck6hb1vRglALBng4l2dQMovAuxR5M7Zzvgucm7pM=; b=LZBWi6ER5+zBkztwPYKTEJd0Z1kVnR8b24htE408mCJKv5UVsnzvYP3mj/rW1RNbDu mVTSbpmt9ay5pTAa50LA8z9nFZNBFNU1qJMUc/KsQoQSnct+AihcM6QhDGdHo0IA3tw+ Xpnx1rQ7A65OL62anwb9QhXXBgdzOYvBwvBaq+8pRF9o9QXMyAemimBSQAUOcna9IvNi ihenHHn6GXg/vYzg9YzBws746gdi7ycTYkqu8T1BTCfPjsZfX0x04J0T3De5ddURK5EZ bVbm3APXLKEZBY6wlLb8nk2a6yc0vBw+OEQjrfk69gYhDSBwcTJbf/UV/IWCej1uSIL+ cEFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k9Iak/f6fdtmpp3KClm0uUBwYMcsKmUP2bhFD5dXRLrTZKDTe1zvWK14xP0yYfiz2578qUvrrkQJrESQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.200.217 with SMTP id t86mr29841947qkl.5.1487738659141; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com> <B4A4FFFD-A90D-4C26-BDBD-75555840CA22@employees.org> <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com> <44F7BEDA-CF11-4E1E-BA6F-88794DEC1AF7@employees.org> <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:44:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaY-7JqeNqotWsrQZ6JqNJ9NdzQT8Jt7Pd_YZwCpNgk6VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113aa8e84c066405491726d7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cvJ95MM_9RcUw7lfdwNVYKsN1es>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:44:21 -0000

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>;
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> christopher.morrow@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> But the configuration cost and management overhead is not proportional to
>>> the hosts that are served by those interconnections, it is proportional to
>>> the number of interconnections. A 10x100G peering interconnection that
>>> serves X million hosts is one interface that has to be managed.
>>>
>>
>> isn't the dicsussion here really:
>>   "If you want to use /64 go ahead, if you want to use /121 go for it, if
>> you want to use SLAAC you'll get a /64 and like it"
>>
>
> Not sure. I for one wouldn't agree with that position, because I don't see
> that /121 has enough advantages over /127 and /64 - and few enough
> downsides for general-purpose hosts - to make it a good idea in general.
>

I don't think /121 is anymore special than /127... or /64. My point was we
don't care what prefix people use, generally, that there are cases where a
/64 is required and that's fine, there are cases where /64 isn't and people
can do what they want there.  It's simple enough to do SLAAC/64 on lans and
other places.

Requiring /64 or /127 and nothing else means when you do have to do a /120
or something else you MAY end up fighting vendor problems because they made
assumptions about: "only ever 64 or 127".