RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Mon, 01 June 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560093A135A for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5a_22fM24x1 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F6053A1341 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 051HfRxh025997; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:41:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1591033288; bh=9UY1pLHh1CCTuoYra00OO22ZOjwhTWITuq2fmaFnhAo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RO9k3NN1u+y9Xll9my8zQVKQLiLl8B4LmOuN0G57n7OSqtR5oS/5CysD2x/NTx0Yx s+BPchd3QmGWYaWfHJYVOmkODcJHQrn70EqstVrv5dpD/+yLPq4LuvyCuTpuPN0eRD lrkfa/qutbQ6jSMqSPq2Nf3vKgghqSj3UZ2ZPZSNuixEYrqc9d1/EC8isPTI6XqpTk uhGxAxRwzWXBwgvhxoZUAplgDmyIh8KsrQXIEx0hZRhJBCIgne4Jf5AmH41hWSroUW OaHEzoDiglp8zPq6tWODlaCWiIyffiTdMDzk7JLkv8FWNFUJIhX4rSAYoU6hsLprMg mljqV+b8+KesA==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 051HfMaU025568 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:41:22 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:20 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:20 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Topic: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Index: AQHWODRh4UB17/vKvU+kMltlc+YSHajEBcAg
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:41:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 2681FBED66C9651D729DC27933383A5D2DBB3BA8CAE3138253C6337B5C5656A22000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 17:41:34 -0000

Philip, good message but I do see an element of truth in what the original poster
was trying to communicate. In aviation, we often deal with wireless links with
bandwidth less than 1Mbps - sometimes even *much* less. Asking those links
to carry at least two IPv6 addresses per packet is a considerable commitment
of resources, but that is our current plan. Should we be open to considering

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 9:45 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> In your letter dated Fri, 29 May 2020 19:12:34 +0200 you wrote:
> >IMHO, it is a misguided dogma to think that RFC8200 128 bit
> >addresses IPv6 is a one-size-fits-all solution not only for
> >what it was built for, the Internet, but also all arbitrary controlled
> >networks - for the infinite future!
> For IPv4, one-size-fits-all was a good thing. Anybody who remembers
> the nightmare of many different network protocols, all slightly different
> knows how great it was to have just one protocol.
> Even in the early days, one-size-fits-all was a bit of a problem. I remember
> SLIP and PPP header compression trying do deal with big headers on slow links.
> Right now we have IPv6, which can address all devices in the world. Which is
> great for software, no need to worry where something is, just generate an
> IPv6 packet and it will get there somehow.
> If we look at the overhead of IPv6 then certainly at speed of 100 Mbps and
> higher, the effect of bigger addresses is left in the noise.
> Obviously, IPv6 on slow links in a limited domain is not a great fit. Does
> that mean that IPv6 has to change? What is the benefit for all those devices
> that are on fast links and have no problem?
> >IoT with IPv6 is an extreme pain (header compression, MTU).
> >Most controlled networks do not even want global addresses (security,
> >segment based app-gateway architectures, ...).
> My first question would be, why not use IPv4 if address size and MTU are
> a problem? IPv4 is certainly a mature technology.
> >16-bit/32-bit/48-bit address sizes would be highly desirable.
> >Even the 1980'th CLNP network protocol had variable sized addresses.
> Nobody who does low level software wants veriable size anything.
> If I compare processing an IPv4 header (which is variable size) with an IPv6
> header, then dealing with an IPv6 header is so much easier. With variable
> length addresses that would only get worse.
> >IPv6 has not solved core problems to be even equal to L2 switching:
> >plug routers together, get automatic connectivity, no bother about addresses.
> >CLNP was a lot closer to that goal too.
> Both DHCPv6 PD and homenet deal with this problem.
> >but think really about another
> >instance of IPv6-NG, but this time backward compatible.
> I doubt that the world is waiting for a third protocol that brings a
> completely new set of issues.
> And I have no clue what a backward compatible internet protocol is supposed
> to look like. People have complained for years that IPv6 is not backward
> compatible with IPv4, but in all that time I have never seen a sensible
> protocol that is actually backward compatible with IPv4.
> >If we continue to proliferate this "one-size-fits-all" myth,
> >then we are just continuing to extend our own version of
> >a winchester mystery house and kill our industry.
> I doubt that the IETF has any power to stop a new local networking protocol.
> If, for example, IoT needs a light weight local networking protocol, then
> anybody can just design it. It may help adoption if there is an easy way
> to convert to and from IPv6, but such a protocol can easily exist outside
> the internet world.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------