Re: the race to the bottom problem

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/11/2020 à 01:00, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
> I am not sure what data you are looking for Nick.
> By definition, no one complying with the RFCs is giving out prefixes 
> longer than /64.

Hence we must write an RFC that makes that compliant.

> By observation, folks are giving out /64s, when we would prefer they 
> gave out /56 or even shorter.

It's not that simple.

If we have an operator that puts a /56 in an RA to a smartphone - will 
that be sufficient?

For my part I think it will not be sufficient.

It will not be sufficient because the smartphone does not know how to 
use a /56 to form an address.  Because it can only form an IID of length 
64.  Pad with 0s?  There' no RFC for that, they could be 1s as well.

So the operator might need to do more work: allocate an additional /64 
for that link, or maybe extract prefixes one of another to accommodate 
the IID  64 mandatory length.

> Given that there are policy statements from various groups about giving 
> out shorter, adn those are being ignored, something is causing that.
> There may be multiple causes.

YEs there are.

And they are so since a few years.

> History does tell us that ISPs give out very long prefixes even when 
> they do not need to.
> 
> Since there appears to be know way to observe a trend past /64, we have 
> to look to history and analogy for data.  History is data.  We can argue 
> about whether it is relevant data.  But it is all the data we have on 
> the topic.

While I agree, I would also say that one would gain from counting the 
time one waits, and not wait forever in what appears to be forming into 
an infinite loop.

Often the time is mentioned: how long should we still wait for mobile 
operators to give /56s to smartphones?

Alex

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/7/2020 6:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Mark Smith wrote on 07/11/2020 23:41:
>>> They're not assumptions if you have first hand experience of the 
>>> history of the rise of IPv4 address conservation measures, and can 
>>> remember what IPv4 addressing practices and mindsets were before IPv4 
>>> addresses became precious.
>>
>> btdt, thanks.
>>
>>> The address conservation mindset is even more distinct and 
>>> distinguishable when you've actually taught it through teaching IPv4 
>>> VLSM in the mid 90s.
>>
>> this looks very much like an appeal to authority.  We're better than 
>> this.
>>
>> So once again, let's try to keep the topic about actual data 
>> concerning ipv6 and this "race to the bottom" as it relates to ipv6.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------