Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-lap-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14/06/2018 14:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:48 AM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I think we can discuss the "race to the bottom" and privacy arguments
>> rationally with this terminology.
>>
> 
> If the problem here is that some people think that changing the acceptable
> prefix length will cause a race to the bottom, then how does creating a
> name help? Just so that have a name to use to track progress in the race?

Two names, adding Mark Smith's SAID suggestion. And yes, having a name or
names that express that there's a decision involved (is this acceptable?)
is IMHO a way to track progress in the discussion as well as in deployment.
It's a very mild form of a thinking tool (as per Daniel Kahneman).

If somebody wants to deploy subnets with a maximum of (say) 256 IoT
nodes, and doesn't care about entropy in the IIDs because of privacy
aspects of the specific scenario, why should we care if they choose
a SAID of 8 bits?

(Why might that be a good thing? Because it would allow you to express
addresses within the subnet in 8 bits. For a constrained IoT node that might
be very important.)

That's the kind of discussion we can have with such terminology.
If we can't have that discussion, we're throwing away valuable
flexibility for the universal deployment of IPv6.

I don't think anybody is arguing against LAP=64, SAID=64 as the
general default.

    Brian