IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: the race to the bottom problem

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 08 November 2020 01:38 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 579EF3A0E50 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=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 onn6eKtTVORH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (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 318D53A0E4F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 17:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 62so3962737pgg.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:38:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9n9S12JyLefzULJ759W5jVb93Ndzkb3MoV90lfcuQXg=; b=An6VaHC9sDHkEooBC311HnPO/mOpez7gEZ5vBamrSKn2v/Jzh5LycBXH6GAXENOjwW XWd1Yin5SDm7GGfYKFdvMERfh5KPyJM7mXEIa2LLmCZ41EmA2YeL+B1RH/i38c26pgrg BNxrrN4SF4PcE14U/0UdLaoHfwOVkFFXcYDOFKLDKmmYbWQQywwmsmdtnOcs9Y45EsPO Ol6erelv4Kck1lNziAYeX2j3cBSOsqpr6tlQy3gGBhY6Ub2x7qr+2giyPYh15Xr49xyx twiJJySqy9cXajlfEIZxiFLm88Pd3Yp06gpDSF0foCa3jh7fS2oU2aVGLYyX3RII+NNi I9PQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9n9S12JyLefzULJ759W5jVb93Ndzkb3MoV90lfcuQXg=; b=fJcVdgOvOU2PCLDfRhUEgF/kHHo4dxQkd0y7HvsXceR4bCL2w6cr7q7TqWJjzqisT8 3fE5h242rYTGeNA4TdbGjcxnVLPF/gGxUmrwP8/bwonN4Ui/m7oOv1rmJEi0XhJ55SQQ opY1XOtW/yhqIMqQg3JaYE01AC9/XMbt+3VnbgObXqkfFw4ba2Mv+1qVafWB6My96i7l DSiED7wNo666jsTiL8q1shfYALDJHwn3hnVbDg6/vGNke2F5ZqbZ+MvUjnpTWCDwPPeS my3Yp40v2PBcbmpK0pe1PThvu6eTaUbAiWorxJQeDkZi8tFl+yewd+C68F3qaQfrn3uv oBcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Sm5JA9Brh67ZcWRddUIpsAqIQ62SDMiwV35Zn2vmrfakxEBjd uFJH3syWY8ehDDJ8uROTJnEgVl0lit0LBQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyEkOCpfOVcJQnxXBnEmPKu+mqnE7z5BFt6Ee7RFL/fzxsN2iEOBWuxxXSqRsqd1kVnXtnnEQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5804:: with SMTP id m4mr7503262pgb.31.1604799491262; Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w17sm6755915pjq.53.2020.11.07.17.38.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Nov 2020 17:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: the race to the bottom problem
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <160409741426.1448.16934303750885888002@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABNhwV0LxM7EuKo2wNtVacjewsVqdhrmSiVBmB_EL-mqJYdU3A@mail.gmail.com> <CD9F9F09-2CBC-4A72-99C0-4A9A470357ED@employees.org> <9e787ed0-a221-e413-e030-ac2553dffc8e@gmail.com> <a21c9447-730b-e2c0-81f6-46deda57f507@gmail.com> <f4635fa9-45ca-f7ec-40a2-41764e1ca74f@si6networks.com> <905bcc26-a223-53d0-6675-c35579b9a8be@gmail.com> <AAE75F7F-F8DF-4B7F-9C50-3D6C91544997@ciena.com> <2b59b2de-3597-8d35-374d-75e9b10d4d83@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zUvDE2ZSCnZa_525Hj7OthhEoDGZcd0D9xxZVW3D8aeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yiXR43mL45KbsZkKY7_YVhWFzW82LL6qed6mVPBjxaw@mail.gmail.com> <E87C175C-C06D-485E-B790-6BC3DB48F101@gmail.com> <3daa3475-68f8-88e0-9fc4-77a58c074fbf@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2zictx_PykbVUqfvODhQwztw47apAnOPjkncRSdqJBLPQ@mail.gmail.com> <e197fdca-2dc6-340b-bd4f-03b89ecc15e9@foobar.org> <b7c7f31c-825d-2a8e-4857-3526639649c4@joelhalpern.com> <CAD6AjGTwPMbW1=SBCsSj15CA5BJY30JFsJoTpAgFYqDJrbUwYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8ef560cf-e256-7590-6090-5291f0256d26@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 14:38:06 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTwPMbW1=SBCsSj15CA5BJY30JFsJoTpAgFYqDJrbUwYA@mail.gmail.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/zDQO6myCjp4Dha-AxZ_ei7-OhJ4>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 01:38:13 -0000

On 08-Nov-20 14:00, Ca By wrote:
...
> History tells us that ipv4 was scarce so people conserved addresses. 
> 
> Operators have unlearend that lesson but the ietf has not.

If that is true, why on Earth does 3GPP still ration each PDP context to one /64? That is for sure not the IETF's fault. We've told them and told them.

It is not the case that the IETF hasn't learned the lesson. In fact, the lack of scarcity is exactly why "wasting" 64 bits on Interface IDs and handing out /48 or /56 to end users are the IETF recommendations. The pressure against those recommendations is *exactly* the race to the bottom.

(In answer to Nick: the data for the race to the bottom don't come from IPv6. We're talking about IPv4, between about 1993 and today.)

But Cameron, please tell us in detail why PD is problematic for some operators. That seems to be the sticking point here.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email