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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Sat, 17 August 2013 08:00 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 93F5F21F99F4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 Zddr3oGffRt6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CEC21F99DE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r7H7tajg016389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:55:36 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com r7H7tajg016389
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1376726138; bh=m+EsfWVEFZGVG/QPgIzi7+a+gIw=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=p0NKbq+LWPzxfoHLmncOIXJ6qeM1m+L0E8z17DxIKDFEC+TcgRv1KlWeIY0nAvwjn /zktIOnQMq7zdF/PAXMKSfrZ8zQbdEG2n1uUDhzqy9oUfT0lIhGdyzBblBmloeeSrK QQioBl3WLWzoxQRfOvJh1nT3T7zpRqWM3CPDtxcQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B99BA6E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:55:36 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <86115BE4-F2F3-4B1E-AAEE-A83D6EFB1B0C@delong.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B99BA6E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, "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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:00:35 -0000

On Aug 16, 2013, at 14:12 , "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dumb question.
> 
> I wonder if there is a less expensive way to go about this. By expensive, I mean "choke. you want a /20?". It has been argued that we need something that is shorter than a /32, and that we need something for ULAs. Whatever we do, it needs to be consistent with class examples that need to get typed into operational equipment. There's a lot more that has been said, but that's what I draw out of it.
> 
> What if we shortened 2001:db8::/32 to 2001:db8::/29? I note that the prefix doesn't show up in ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-latest, and the IANA counterpart mentions it only in a footnote.

I think at least a /28 is necessary. I'm not entirely convinced that a /20 is needed, but I can see good argument for a /24.

> 
> We could also delegate fc00:db8::/29, or something longer (/44 perhaps, allowing for the description of several ULA prefixes in documentation but not chewing up as much address space), by the same logic.

I think this would be fine (even at the /44 level).

> I see the argument, but not for the size requested.

I'll leave it to Antonio et. al to justify a /20, but I'd like to see us get at least a /28.

Owen