IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SLAAC, Static & DHCPv6 day 1 interoperability issue

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 10 November 2020 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 663C93A1565; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6Mt_RtHzpOrU; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54B203A1564; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82FFF3AB0C6; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A6C16005A; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCA0160064; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id tdjAEtRJitlz; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [1.0.0.3] (n114-75-120-99.bla3.nsw.optusnet.com.au [114.75.120.99]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FEFE16005A; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: SLAAC, Static & DHCPv6 day 1 interoperability issue
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2TzoYB=Jhr35NDypYkVUd_t1HFX=U+M_Z7KXJJ_wteJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:21:48 +1100
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro@shytyi.net>, Dusan Mudric <dusan.mudric@gmail.com>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac@ietf.org" <draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9E50B33-530F-47AD-9E7E-FC95B6D4A6CE@isc.org>
References: <CABNhwV1D7ng8JHJVUBrMhVmbQEQrhECBN_XUUcS5ZSV0WF=Lnw@mail.gmail.com> <4658abe3-909e-af0a-ddad-85db06e161ff@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1rBhWF6e7Tuk6L-R=gTmWgfXvFkWkCQyvbmEA06W3t0A@mail.gmail.com> <4088150e-1289-5c4f-184d-30df3e66f354@gmail.com> <CABNhwV2DQ_N8b8RsRAd0Bcd5v7qXV9Dq3p+BheQVxFz+zar-BQ@mail.gmail.com> <99059E36-BE6B-4DB1-AE9E-176154A0F730@isc.org> <CABNhwV0t=GQ3mdXV7pKnEmeEsBC2SbLTVrk+tPu6agz=7YbamA@mail.gmail.com> <3AEF7767-5A03-4172-91F9-69645DF2670B@isc.org> <467dd987-e599-a9c6-9d26-ac2f7155fec7@gmail.com> <CABNhwV2TzoYB=Jhr35NDypYkVUd_t1HFX=U+M_Z7KXJJ_wteJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vfWU4HlsaxQ8O5iUaTO2CMaClig>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:21:56 -0000


> On 10 Nov 2020, at 12:05, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:42 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10-Nov-20 12:25, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Just because there where lots of people with IPv4 think in the operator community that
> > pushed back because “We think we know best” doesn’t mean the original decision was wrong.
> > 
> > If you look at those communities more and more are coming to the understanding that /48
> > was a good decision.
> 
> I think it took a surprisingly long time for people to understand that the 35 trillion /48s in 2000::/3 is a really big number.
> 
>   I agree 35 trillion is hard to comprehend and on top of that all the IANA unallocated ranges which includes a bunch of /3.  In theory that all sounds great.  One factor that does play into that is the two layers of allocations framework IANA to RIR and then RIR allocation to service providers which is large but not as large as you would expect given the 35 trillion.  RIR is still stingy old school on its allocations.  

Please name a single ISP that is unable to get enough /48’s for all their customers from a RIR.

Having to do a little paperwork to justify the size of the allocation being requested is not being stingy.

>     Brian
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Gyan Mishra
> Network Solutions Architect 
> M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike 
> Silver Spring, MD
> 

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email