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

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Tue, 21 February 2017 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 C9B701294E7; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:50:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 v_HvDP8vWOeL; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 AECF912944D; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v1LJowW6006351; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:50:58 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.221]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v1LJopr8006312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:50:51 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdd::8988:efdd) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:50:50 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:50:51 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSjGfMgtRG27MIc0yfTQ6D9ojxU6Fz2xKw
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:50:50 +0000
Message-ID: <76f6e70880d34632a334181df2fba637@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com> <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org> <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com> <ECF27195-4A6B-4AFC-8950-83876F333BD4@employees.org> <20170220235734.GA84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr3p=8b9Dmmb9GvGMq1u00xnE2ScmaF_a3FJXiteL=ZhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local>
In-Reply-To: <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/oHFaDybwzW5iXgTiL_XBZGFRPz8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:51:00 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders

> NEW:
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198]. When using [SLAAC], [ILNP], or [NPT66] the Interface ID
>    of unicast addresses is required to be 64 bits long. In other use
>    cases different prefix sizes may be required. For example [RFC6164]
>    standardises 127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.
>    For most use cases, prefix lengths of 64 bits is RECOMMENDED, unless
>    there are operational reasons not to do so.

Sounds about right to me. Another exception that requires /64 would be ULAs.

I think that after RFC 2460-bis becomes the standard, this /64 debate will be revisited. Why? To make it super clear that for unicast, in general, /64 are going to be the exception, not the rule (as so much text now suggests). The 64 bit prefix applies to the 2000::/3 address space, and those few exceptions.

For example, this is all up in the air still, but we can assume that just as households are being assigned one /64 prefix frequently, so will cars? Each car gets a /64. Does anyone think that cars will only include one IPv6 subnet? Not me. So we will need CIDR.

Bert