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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 03:52 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 A652B12957D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:52:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 8Qo2IHklqRjp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:52:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (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 E04A3129578 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:52:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id r136so91438338vke.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:52:13 -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=M8LFO7WLJj0UD0JgIDhcDsBpxRM6Ta9NrS+WItsPg+I=; b=mEutR/Hhr1e3Ts/9uPW1k09cLS7f2cgHO70RIJ/AGL1BlIuabb0/3RPrKZK6BLv4ld c6AxiiG/A2H+fbduTKZxKoDmxcPw8C3MlAPzNEDdjxdXy4Upjhr0pmDcgHuJKkCx4ZcV uke7t7Rhx7WTCwbg0WmJyQfjNJ38RVGjg7UOSLVk8fnT4JwIu9157u1zrHWSLhw5LmFx +n5/jecKX5ZPYWUVQjZ9V0hE+Lw5fbwdkr7o3NZ5/Qr3cyhzxSyQiN8LY2tzcv38srlx PE46lPd/k/OJS/XLIq5SHy5SSQ+F+6lY7QBxyMfLb0CCt/mqslmNpqgNBXzipUwZ+rL5 XgYQ==
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=M8LFO7WLJj0UD0JgIDhcDsBpxRM6Ta9NrS+WItsPg+I=; b=IgtDP4GmXTgGvi+YCcBaI/lBg3h5rwsPe3E/kR+wUdmocBLU3XmCXu+Yp3CSzwduFM VRGsiFYPOMDKw/zzzmDtYh4npAzk9e48QrDsaIU8znAYFbe7r7HT9Lt45WtYgFRSsff6 AlwmIWJwQeUaWQ74DHycLXqV6oAmoPuGK33JP9ArrlObjynMVBkY+LOVODRMWGPYgat0 DIZ9sKKoGhg8n9ozKSrNTkNy6GD3IXRsbtQucpwMWXnRvpE2MCwGjt4uPcDXC0FJ4nyF Kbl5QvMH4c4NkDYkAjrDDEFzS63z1/VmGcFEUjAYwHnOtXLBZRjoQMUj9HRCtwgLjedF rOSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lS3/UGNpNLn4NUpmrREb/IvxCZCWo68JUcZhWCVLt8hwjV7iSczfdU90C2XMbNJrYVsIqRuu5EXkD5LUUo
X-Received: by 10.31.192.204 with SMTP id q195mr14921289vkf.155.1487735532777; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:52:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:51:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:51:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114388ccf3d54f0549166b69
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rKkxdFbGHRJetP2Bm4shF_Ds1-Y>
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 03:52:15 -0000

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.