Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 19 August 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF4B11E814B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kILkVC+h5v0G for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E3121F977A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1938; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376947796; x=1378157396; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dOx71zvuCrcEpyYn/g6s+/ZYh5JghokkQ7bGvYctD+Y=; b=gUqK7Tbn5Yt6b5Ucm7+1Eppgv1QUoBB1XZ6+qdSGfMhPKR2hfbiufw9y /Oo6vkLcmmGwnyNXit8rAdGf5NdSH14UmOAWQBue7U6rmY7y/Xw46GqWk WcU/0q8xwAF7BaqIPDtEfN9DP/tt5I1l+RgNG/5cyOBPGquioaLeFU7lo k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAOeNElKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABbgwWBBr80gSQWdIIkAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgiJDIlAgQOBQgGh3wGrAiPHoENMQeDG3cDkBaBLowai1uDHIFpQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,914,1367971200"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="249134393"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2013 21:29:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7JLTtAJ031552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:29:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.28]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:29:55 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
Thread-Index: AQHOnSM/vb4c/joEcUaScjJd8+oWZA==
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:29:55 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9A9526@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B99BA6E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <20130819123450.GY65295@Space.Net> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9A9042@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <D023BDCA-C340-4FAE-9F86-9463E980DF3E@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D023BDCA-C340-4FAE-9F86-9463E980DF3E@delong.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.119]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_903DE1E8-D04E-48ED-8FC4-71654C252D68"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:30:12 -0000

On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
 wrote:

> In such a case, should we stick with fc00:db8::/44 or should we consider fc00:db0::/28 for parity?

</chair>

I'm concerned on two points. 

I don't think "parity" is a strong argument. It seems to me that we want to be able to have an example with several ULAs. ULAs are, by definition, /48s. The discussion on 2000::/3 led us to somewhere in the neighborhood of 16..32 prefixes that might be allocated to an operator in an example making sense. 16..32 /48 prefixes takes me closer to /44 than /28.

When I wrote "fc00:db8:?::/44", the '?' was very deliberately there. George Michaelson's talk at IETF 87 highlighted that APNIC sees ULA source addresses in the traffic that makes it to their darknet, and specifically they see people that have randomly chosen the 40 bit number "0" to insert into fd00::/8 - the source address in the datagram is in fd00:0000:0000:xxxx::/64. That suggests to me that people see the prefix fd00::/8 and take it literally. Color me "cautious", but I think that would be a bad precedent to follow. I'd rather the '?' was anything but zero, if only to limit faults between the keyboard and the chair.