Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 13 October 2021 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 CECFE3A0774 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.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 N-EC3DbouJZw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59F23A0773 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:14af:8646:5244:2bdd]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 19DHPdav3967655 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:25:55 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 19DHPdav3967655
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1634145955; bh=fr8YqWbOvh0j8Lv1ck8M60O/5gJ8PFHx+xXw05C1Ncs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=z4q3KhLkaLfb1g1P2mZn/skP2NycV0TTw846S3k2G5y35oDQ2tCWjsvxYyaDp0pqE N0oHiYTcbaM997QKKkzkvLQ/0RLCGsIDZEBmI2tsQHdYQQxPtO8F+qfz11heyeD8Db VTw6LlA2Dq4Z5szEPeT9R+xxDxRBVc8fKWRVZ6gI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <YWcQKwK3lAKpl7y1@Space.Net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:25:36 -0700
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-10@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFD526B0-7CA3-4445-910F-425142C0AEDA@delong.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr10OKMJ1y8bs5xpt6jS8ZWsqs66oFCXmp-QLySS5Yn4hg@mail.gmail.com> <5DF8D1AE-4B54-429F-962A-488F2AA1F895@delong.com> <CAPt1N1ma45GKqXcvjHUGCYFKVbEGp3OuT013pZhrnOkFFLMiQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2Pe+=tNkA7Ou9KeMkgFhcdSb8WxgVn1w9MauusMEhRcw@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881076DFF8A145C8CD818B8D8B69@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A188D974-3CEB-497F-93EA-B66C77D2CA90@delong.com> <YWW1ghmjueHmfCEb@Space.Net> <m1maKp6-0000I3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <YWW8FPkRuxCBFp3o@Space.Net> <D0510DEB-04FF-4864-9363-6FC40C686C22@delong.com> <YWcQKwK3lAKpl7y1@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5LCfmIV3Aw_fKE-yKMiwCoDp-hE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:26:03 -0000


> On Oct 13, 2021, at 09:58 , Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:39:43PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> (ceterum censeo, /64 was not a very smart decision)
>> We can agree to disagree. So far, I???ve seen no data to support that.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> So far I have not seen any data that supports "/64 was a good idea" :-)

It’s working quite well in a number of networks I’ve deployed.

It’s convenient for EUI-64 addressing.

Reviewing the record, it seems we were destined for something like 64-bit
addressing overall before IETF decided to consider EUI-64 addressing and
added 64-bits to the plan, so one can argue that without the idea of
universal /64 addressing we’d have a whole lot fewer network numbers
available.

So now you have seen data to suggest that /64 was a good idea.

Do you have any data support your claim that /64 was not?

Owen