Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, 07:09 Brian E Carpenter, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 07-Nov-20 03:30, Mudric, Dusan wrote:
> > Would it help if the problem statemen clarifies that:
> >
> > - There is no race to the bottom. We are not trying to solve ISP problem
> by allowing longer than 64bit prefixes,
>
> Unfortunately, once you push code allowing >64 subnet prefixes for SLAAC
> into the wild, you do automatically give ISPs a path to to allocating
> longer prefixes to customers, and all history tells us that some of them
> will follow that path.
>
> Once that code is out there, the race to the bottom is enabled.
>


The current bottom is a single /64.

Any provider who is only giving out a single /64 to customers who might or
will need more than one /64 has already raced to the current bottom.

A "deeper bottom" or longer default allowed prefix length will just
facilitate further racing to the deeper bottom. It won't encourage giving
out more than one /64 for those who might need them; it'll do the opposite.

The pain should to be put where it is caused, onto the providers who should
be giving out multiple /64s to their customers.

Regards,
Mark.



> Even draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6 doesn't recommend changing the /64
> default for SLAAC. (If it did, my name would not be on that draft.)
>
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>