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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 09:04 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 1996612A148 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:04:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 DV9PsbtCyzTW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 E313912A15C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id t8so16344036vke.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:03:57 -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=lBxzyCroP73O/WS2lDMyNtU8szlgKWVNr5jfHx5pafM=; b=QMQR61Jej8/kCRtFpdeyuRB+eZoYLKwmfT4yuHO3Lud2sm+SzEho5GkO5vgeU3MjGo VmWhuzPCfkCha5Gf8hTBHRZYkRaFsYrXeOahhOg7W2W23u0V2AbWYzrA7Po9H9YeOOtp 22whhN1tbp7uI1j/orzf/0K7qNbGNCh7XSyGb0uwS7X483O+6+SmahgLs0JKwV7cILqz KxJv+1bdoG4/GzmNmdU1O3tQc1Flt8qiHxyCajq6et906D8bTZFkZvGEjRGCA+JooLBW yGjNHBtw95ps7h2tsHA7lZEmXiO8Pt24RigYeSOUHOB0Amxrk3jXV8cxwvRSxC1t1Tur Ug6A==
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=lBxzyCroP73O/WS2lDMyNtU8szlgKWVNr5jfHx5pafM=; b=pe+HcTBm7+0x8scXIDrgnPVM+rpq1OgOQGu/EraOyvEp4RrRkitgmbVisxE/k/JcP0 VkuBdpg0hMKkuBc4OCGQwZPUOgK7cGbtbYHA5iLcvEZSGsEoB8cXN/ny29l8bem4N3id 9nyOiCVKBJwBc7kqSxCw1XvCErPO5N5rgNBSaP/4jId3zc2TJ9uZMJ89RqJXcYitksmx FKmmiu7IaI5xzH6QM5jG5oM2av89I2tYaa9to5km+uZaMgXBNx69Fqz37qCpL6U1/1lf TvTAFAxyMYwhbAnGrjjUhW1Xbr4WR1EbJO5VUqaBbqzoK3SQ3Wan01YHYmst7yhBvUID 3UIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lUfZXrpZFIwpnlZ9grwvAJrTI29ItJ8Vmd38+vTMIBkaGLTZl9wmhDj6/3AxAbxHpulqXy1F8oRPkbxbSv
X-Received: by 10.31.150.134 with SMTP id y128mr16261228vkd.102.1487840636793; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:03:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:03:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170223.094711.41666643.sthaug@nethelp.no>
References: <CAKD1Yr0LHCT9_3QzaDY=XKWwSsA5CtE-4EqaQsp_Fp_3-Y56GA@mail.gmail.com> <30dda6a9-2683-8157-1b75-9aa154b8deb7@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1hSj0VQQ4vkxnnATxbW3eM2G3WK57OR-fNffydHz5BTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170223.094711.41666643.sthaug@nethelp.no>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:03:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2+L2cBMqTmhkwprYbBtTfez70Pv6cx08a+aLPkhhwJqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141d600a409c405492ee447
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ssahLE2yzRkes6TVYuwQUK0QDww>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:04:02 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:47 PM, <sthaug@nethelp.no>; wrote:

> 1000 /64 links for every /65-126 link may well be the case. However,
> plenty of non /64 links exist, and I see no sign of them going
> away. Claiming that all IIDs are 64 bit is simply incorrect, and
> doesn't reflect operational reality no matter how hard you try to
> make that claim.
>

I'm not saying that all IIDs are 64 bits. I'm saying that as a percentage
of the Internet, more code is deployed that expects/requires 64 bit IIDs
than links than non-/64 links. So if we want to make the standard reflect
reality, then we should keep it as is.