IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 12 October 2021 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 403AD3A0A26 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:19:30 -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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
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 Lwg2pD_syvhH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [194.97.132.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22D573A1644 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1634055565; x=1665591565; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=RqtUqVqz4/3xuyGlsDC/VmNJV+qI9j2CweuX3B8Oz+Y=; b=OjTn1t5TJmgbynoJ3p4Eyp60XVnkRdgteddA9LW0OZemyy4/D62pgyF/ mgIT9asWK1H083HCnEYnLfSvVJlG0HKVA+wcSCPfWC5kiQydxEQoVeX9N HTyXLqxa/6s08l21ktM7iS1Kchq+H5gVBfUOKRhBeEBaPEr0ekXFCj5JD wZmOZ6QgigteaaeeX64cLz9eZWDxVB1d7mkC57ssO6uSGi3pnHp1zcJVx uIGvuKuxWEgVqT/LazTtL8BBQrB7zih5oaqiZMqsWvrZFD5sXW2NJ0Glf 1guuW2Wjg2OYW0IlHFcsgPRJBePORPr5mmrEy8K2MDl+B3C05a73s6Nzx Q==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2021 18:19:15 +0200
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1034245B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E40840EC4; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 88B2111ECFA; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:19:14 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YWW1ghmjueHmfCEb@Space.Net>
References: <DM6PR02MB69249D4F0A8003E77EC9F153C3B19@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <E1FED93B-674C-46DD-8C39-F6C30475C48A@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr34jv_N0jGKdg=sG76oGU7PdRjYFC_-w9Uvzs=7oGm38w@mail.gmail.com> <E6316781-AC7D-438F-B216-75B1DF9217DC@delong.com> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A188D974-3CEB-497F-93EA-B66C77D2CA90@delong.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/EzQhl51YYr2dGow-1bhqVjmgCik>
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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:19:31 -0000

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:29:18AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What???s the advantage to this vs. delegating /64s?
> 
> If you???ve got a subnet that???s a /64 and you???re using it to route discrete /118s within the subnet, that???s just going
> to create net mask confusion among the peers. I suppose if you???re looking to make it difficult for peer to peer
> traffic between the delegated subnets, that???s one possible way to do it, but it???s unlikely to be reliable at
> preventing peer to peer communication while just creating behaviors that will be confusing to end users that
> don???t know the unique characteristics of your particular network in this regard.

Right.  My mental model would not us "the same /64 that the wifi is
attached to" but "a chunk of addresses from a second /64".

I strongly dislike the implications of "any larger site that has a wifi
network needs to have a /52 provisioned, so thousands of wifi clients
can have a /64 *each*" on address space management on all layers.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email