IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 10E02132193; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FgiD4hY0lbNW; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (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 0D7EE129A89; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id i130so2318815pgc.3; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uFDf1jW8pQeFcBkrswb0VT1CBinLXeqIhu2dkkFrYlQ=; b=omP1CMALqI25MMItD7YvG1GiDUlU0V3b7NJGbkRo2Ebe0LFa39DM7TpT98OOESfBJS ElVhO1Fcj5BBvLCcDiXEZPFoJlFeENThW4k5fnuL38+UFm9HnO5gHUYQI0CKr3kCi23O GRK7y8OSgTtH5lUksHZbiHCRWGNHp2+VSIOu6voZQer+kfbvdMfHDOaMTFp8iCAZSNlO 0yb5kKmAlxkPEjKQhQgigSwEbeT5z/YTeGzPz9mO4UqUgWHB6ls3xyAAffb8PLxekgue 83XfpCRmRHvJe312t5Bu6y99p4Y6F1paz3g46yjZszPkWOtztAu8SnZDh9VLahajuqqp N+oA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uFDf1jW8pQeFcBkrswb0VT1CBinLXeqIhu2dkkFrYlQ=; b=HqfLEdD9orfbMPK+rZ4s8onSKWDm+Vza8/5Fv1gwG+YuvhTGqHuIQ4w92CJGiRGDWq Pfwxv0scEvJBkevUBPzMlcKd/z6+L7jac+Y9MSS1vj3z8m7sI1UV8NyEqAxLggYForcn sLr7qTXLM4zWkTYFbuJP9IhlDeWdEtgB5i6V6+xm7nsSs7YTTtg0pw0H712TPu1CzHQ7 W72LmoClfs7eAzeLoIktWS5YN5jg00FPRMhv4SOUrgkB8FGFheVgTF7ZECc/ufWxaZv8 6E4hOrguQ7sosPEIQwEMRXFmCAX3eTlaG08mJm6Cws80oNZwnjtKW+8a+ezAF08f8GpL 1gDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUifq/B4U09hSJjV/X8ddJ3MZoLoR3GHeIU7Nxrg/p/yW/d8EgZ4 f3JrPgmJabwXf+FH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7+1x8eOBl1mYbRQrpkkU13m4MS4xw1FDBypDi3gEAuEvGlVMOiL/bZX+Mr79sf/jprZrc9og==
X-Received: by 10.84.129.193 with SMTP id b59mr30160987plb.108.1505518299234; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:57a7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:57a7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d124sm3989408pfc.42.2017.09.15.16.31.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <150523432567.17956.11322312258310497482@ietfa.amsl.com> <7e8fd49f-a777-fd9e-d410-be7e8d5958cc@gmail.com> <3F17FC48-D8CB-46A4-A8B3-0BC7F65E6D26@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <bf117e83-ec1c-03fa-1eff-38679277829e@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:31:45 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3F17FC48-D8CB-46A4-A8B3-0BC7F65E6D26@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u-MPNrsYVozxgYGowAoztpHT_w4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 23:31:42 -0000

On 15/09/2017 20:10, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Re https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00
>>
>> "One of the goals of IPv6 was to have a sufficiently long address
>> to allow grouping in fields to simplify routing decisions."
>>
>> What makes you believe that? I don't recall such a goal in the IPng
>> process, and I can't see any trace of it in RFC1752 or RFC1726.
> 
> 
> “Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow addressing; choose one” - Y Rekhter
> 
> Goal or no goal, we know of no other way to make the routing system scale.

Sure. I agree with that and with the RIPE policy that Mikael cited. Believe
me, everybody in the IPng discussion was acutely aware of the tension between
PA and PI addressing and the benefits of aggregation when possible. But that
is very different from the quoted "goal", which simply wasn't there. Allowing
topological aggregation was a goal, of course, but that's always been a
matter of prefix assignment policy, not of the protocol design.

Please note that I did not say that their idea will not work. It's the
"alternative fact" that I'm concerned about.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email