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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 05:29 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 A0BBE132335; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 dQzsVzIYBUBq; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (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 5B0A3132403; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e189so5835323ioa.4; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:from:organization:to:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sK7t5Egrc3KpjkmV0/GpnnykRdTdAZ2E4kmkAEg0rXY=; b=N+X7N8N63GnwiXSr7TVuuVb6dS4L/VGis52TZBd+2+6gm1SRHneah76bzQu1mxolLT yf918stJY9QRb5ZGDT7CAZjSEHadSJF7QiLD6THYUlmErRcjUQnvNVDXQtUrQ9PC7vkl 9N0huYnKBOLrTqmHBp0JGGfcubNFrvjGDKC2e+/WgoubqBsiYI1GY7Y0WQs299rzBvJu F6YpRBu14NG3h/Vv7XrOHNUeckKjUD8W2IWtLMIFPrt+nXxlQUhElrd8HYDF/fLzYcm2 si4uAqY6tVMfYzcNnNSKZ+daEEyId39rXov2OIyAN/MgALtCv5rWtoSduUnnP5Q+WZOz romQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:from:organization:to:cc :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sK7t5Egrc3KpjkmV0/GpnnykRdTdAZ2E4kmkAEg0rXY=; b=cQiii8Nh7DFmQBazKNAQ5QV+Dh+krbVRtAI0xL/J9bhXNmQCuRV7Mwo+e01FiEZTZl yTLOioZbGCjBd3itGMkh88V7SgxyLZg5goVXAmjkNI3cgWG7k4dMiqP85hEe6WN+kI82 rz5bPSKz4lmQ0SKR+s1ShQPAuFtvCqhVMeo0jvs54FCG4iE643Y9ybTL5tp5OcRbtIPM X6NKj9z3WMJdeuG3swEmIjmTTZZahCsTSATdIt+JsanTm6Yy2f2q39rQBJZc9giKBjAn pHAdhgNLDvW/MJIcrSV6Ii8ehQ5A4ydO4pTPbGPA4APVEe002C3riuFoik3UI+/pO4N3 FUmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhyB9srKQE2m/kRXJd8rbsz+RIcJRDi1MU5LpXfHq80UqViI12V ziUwLxndoJHtkEjT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAtVwjpE/We5oprhNuXVNZXZx6fE+qFd8pK4qibeWIQCu9JguOccNupnKZbqTH+MMWlbinBgw==
X-Received: by 10.107.180.216 with SMTP id d207mr7141750iof.275.1505453357392; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:17 -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 k9sm48863iok.17.2017.09.14.22.29.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt
References: <150523432567.17956.11322312258310497482@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing@ietf.org
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7e8fd49f-a777-fd9e-d410-be7e8d5958cc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:29:22 +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: <150523432567.17956.11322312258310497482@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wNjx7LO96nnYtLVhi6s9eM9ZQ4Y>
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 05:29:24 -0000

Hello,

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.

I do find some rather different considerations in RFC1726:

> 5.1 Scale
> 
>    CRITERION
>       The IPng Protocol must scale to allow the identification and
>       addressing of at least 10**12 end systems (and preferably much
>       more).  The IPng Protocol, and its associated routing protocols
>       and architecture must allow for at least 10**9 individual networks
>       (and preferably more).  The routing schemes must scale at a rate
>       that is less than the square root of the number of constituent
>       networks

which means that routing via a binary tree of addresses was not
considered OK.

...
> 5.2 Topological Flexibility
> 
>    CRITERION
>       The routing architecture and protocols of IPng must allow for many
>       different network topologies.  The routing architecture and
>       protocols must not assume that the network's physical structure is
>       a tree.

ditto.

So regardless of where we are today, I believe your assertion quoted
above is not true. In fact the exact opposite was the case when IPv6
was designed.

Now, if I ignore the stranger aspects of your proposal, you are 
proposing to subnet a /64 using something like a binary tree. It might
even work, at the price of replacing a great deal of existing software
and hardware. However, is there really a need for cut-through routing
in sensor networks, which seems to be your target scenario?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter