Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 03:47 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 76E74128BA2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:47:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 30xY5TTNvyWX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x229.google.com (mail-ua0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) (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 3E4A612706D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 72so194343826uaf.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:47:36 -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=LbS680mxhuqueT56KPrzaGLzHUTg/mOCyEOssRH/jbE=; b=N9E6wq4x0myBSV52ZV6LWU1g57UR7k4KTIHkSPcEVNx9Zu/2kWPKucRoe4+GcTxRzD Qv5iuKT9KFw/vd+itgIonS3p7C7zEmHVAspFrm6cKW+P9hOkMrEERGRz5s1NleTREQOD SpEdkdTS5Oy71dDU6QKwgSKVod08ZMjy1DoRLJzL854ULSToPCTle1zBLf8S+lxk8nUK Z0Mz2MiGTM6yhaykY/Y/0hbjhLOh+HkANIX9arIyNbU+o7oFnjKMATfG0Z393knj6h4w hYzzUqE//j9E7aMmwZLiZENTVu2pLXAKOr9wWVX4vtgo9VviIwohnKQwR+KmdF09R0on IXNA==
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=LbS680mxhuqueT56KPrzaGLzHUTg/mOCyEOssRH/jbE=; b=bDZ+YyjS00tFXbNNAH20ZUOvGDH0iP2kCCHF9ji1GDEZvZdMYbLMylJumyOHeODejh oi78l1IoUdHsAxoliVQljdTRZoVD5dHbJz65dUk1IjJCGHHZ8DX9TNy994CaSaQV/OR9 fGJ4b2hQ0tO4UGaqQEke9AbA+3ANmNBCCg1yNv7fGR6vo7/6st0hWkil/ZlK6w7qR/HK 0jrm9+1sVy4gSWI3oISHi1Lrc+NVe6XuncrLPzlwwlU7jo3Awkz1pzInb0XDJ2KUT26S z0+iKe2IHarn5rgIhT2myLWVHKG9nlWpKNk1j/KDV3Vq8//gMkYQv/fPq48EeVD4p6ll S6GA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nYa+xIn/5SEfHaBzntAcdhzdWDWBWaTHEGPo8wmmPxVFbvUXvon4N4fbVp6/sEH3Ya/GIOJj4OohkcU79o
X-Received: by 10.159.40.202 with SMTP id d68mr9298362uad.122.1488858455244; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:47:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:47:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D703D336-8CC7-4609-AB11-119F1EFF748D@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2AEVAo1TCWDLTOzibRBtTtXoWdL2a0ishm_pQ3T4bWAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1tZ6kbnBktUGkycee=vzmfY4ynO1Vd4HzbFWgOUpDp2A@mail.gmail.com> <D703D336-8CC7-4609-AB11-119F1EFF748D@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:47:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2=ENkdtPBQ=L_Uu+hRh4uw3gOFE73YBbuL1aSNNwrCRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12382e58f2ab054a1bdf95
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xnDIEW3pXU1UvnuvvRF45D0VbxI>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 03:47:37 -0000

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Of a network chooses to do something different in the absence of that
> limitation, I understand the Internet Architecture to give it that latitude
> and the authority to impose an address allocation mechanism and policy.
>

The architecture currently does not give it that latitude, because RFC4291
makes a blanket statement that ("most") IIDs are 64 bits long.


> The argument I have heard for serial lines is that, with high probability,
> if there are more than 2^1 addresses on a link, selecting a random address
> for one's peer has a high confidence of selecting an address the peer isn't
> using, resulting in an ICMP error instead of a response.


I'm not sure I understand this problem statement. Are you saying that for a
link that only has two peers on it, it is convenient to use a subnet that
is /127, because you don't have to know the peer address? That's true, but
it only applies to /127 and not any other prefix size, right?


> That, assuming I understand it, is the fundamental argument behind /127.
> Reduced to simpler terms - if the environment makes assumptions, the
> addressing should make the same assumptions.
>

Isn't that still a philosophical argument that applies to the current
solution, though?