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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 D22C51294BB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:54:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 2TcW36Y5TFf9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]) (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 4B9611294AC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q7so37185785uaf.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:54:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=paOvnAAh+hUBOIb3ldkgqIpKpM/VpEmQVP3HUFH7oV8=; b=YY7uU5AkVaQ/EgkjnBj/KYgrNTCAVa0ZEY/3oVL1Ay1p8gPxby4oVeycBAeTjwPWgC caOo01wlHnjfoL2/NgPcGZWNNjdm85E4CUsHrpD28Mho+ZOMGDUHaOGuZplO11HMRbqT H8CLXE6YRodnpNT6lrrMivkol+6RcvORtxywaHx4XU4hX70UNh64mBPOM2HQyKXJ2aCY eI+V0HwnNwTUTxN4ZEfeCF/41Uq5nImuaiwGp/k/+lfbIt1WDWLx4t1BZJ3WTM40Uwz3 bsK7uMLMOLiUSgB8MqQniQpBr3idq1ckkFiXw+rF065vZlV9AbVrwClOk/9sBDlNBM9Q 7wnA==
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=paOvnAAh+hUBOIb3ldkgqIpKpM/VpEmQVP3HUFH7oV8=; b=tkB5EoEHd686vE1/XxZ8GJnIfpwwiSqzHT4utCL7wEsVKOsMeYpNxJQ3nI4gKsde0H jkRDwyQT8STyqC5h6y9/vULUmuzvAqLinjSdSli+sIbUd+R06vMdJd0x1HC/YBwgVW6+ a0iOYY1VLapEZ7QJSd+R7i6/80CtszyAambc/1YxdWJLOOESHM9DWPno9vGDAETgJevl 9rIWk+m6xuhV/kdhzgPHbH+HLo0bw1kYSgxW3vlEeIz4h8U303y1Q7NQKZIfVfd58Rz1 qV+jC0+Lri8Gv+mMC6k47prdBqSpftMxkBTKd/bc42f033izJHy9KRl9DapNSQK1A5cB mjmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kPjGDBns6rhCaulHhOEbvSWZr2O1kTf6yLkBgSoZByy2B6GndyOAyBx3ibP5G2jf+sVXSmzM9K9+zM44Xj
X-Received: by 10.176.2.71 with SMTP id 65mr3497673uas.155.1488444861159; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:54:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:54:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <58B74D22.5010104@foobar.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAKD1Yr0qwwfH2a2ND7Va7tHigVTQ=iWkEwicxhTYpjuYMJnARg@mail.gmail.com> <58B6A02E.50501@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3j88RP=Hc3Xa-cMwOUZ1Td1uej0AHsNEKoAchoCe-ghQ@mail.gmail.com> <58B74D22.5010104@foobar.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:54:00 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3Du9U8UF98dhFSG6RBmTVdP5zqbpmYiraWejj_aLaY6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11428a3638367b0549bb9329
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/o61rbZC3BObqhKbVus3p8d9m_TU>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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 08:54:24 -0000

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:

> > Can you explain the difference between your reply and "we've been doing
> > it for 20 years therefore it must be the right thing to do"?
> >
> > The latter is a a) not a technical argument, and b) not a useful
> > argument if most of that operational knowledge was formed using IPv4.
> > Given that for most of the 1990s IPv6 had not been designed, much less
> > operationally deployed, I assume that you do indeed mean IPv4.
>
> Kindly stop throwing straw men into this discussion.  This is extremely
> unhelpful and is not going to result in anything useful.
>

Let me rephrase the question. I asked for use cases for longer-than-/64
prefixes and listed the ones I have seen so far:

   - "I only need 3 addresses" (but not "I only need 3 addresses and here's
   why I can't accept 2^64 instead of 3")
   - ND exhaustion attacks

Do you have additional use cases? "This is the way we've done it for 20
years" is not a use case.