IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 09 August 2017 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 D15E91324C7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 jlVnDnAiqNuY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x230.google.com (mail-ua0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::230]) (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 C77711324C5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f9so34862874uaf.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ilorXJVi3Gfd2JFCxf3dmudbnLS6twrDM2MKn+KUutU=; b=UHgyfII6MYU6AfEVJGfWHcTHnWEpRvf1eYRqDlt9BNIQoDc0Ct259J+7Ld2vNK4KyO TNOF+/LGUzNsM5yGi89crsWa+Nd1vjqWBNWz3HsKnCvHWCRMY+E8w0AsDLC8oXUNrxZU m2q4t2FfahVHllB+oXPqK3zokd6EQ0F97iAU5wfNqTx7zZTm/n3yLO5VJ4CuA44+Pg8w cu+NjOXP8rLukHrKT3hWciOkjQxPNsDEgpuEj1yRXLeApKgHg1I9/aghpU8IyHnYDYXw whEAYM9L1Xnv/eu34aWOxI5+vaOk65m1zmtR0xA49diI7bkcX9uIuDNgRiut4iJVTK+k yaJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ilorXJVi3Gfd2JFCxf3dmudbnLS6twrDM2MKn+KUutU=; b=SIkw3SY1zcMU8uL+M1Auu21OlfD1ijA254rxLEy0FME7jmIvPrvMAr0cO7jxk5YfNT HoLz57GgmX8IZgOvsGRprT8O1s/VAxpI1vVsq9fugPnbBcQ6STr7tvgFQMC7zeVoaq0F L4BSMrrERLZRXKsH+BwgXlb/7x+oMqqDNAvMzPB/oQZPyPMdkrmaJahpzqkAijL5NFnu FOJYwCrazbJcLlz1EL9v8NJrdk3Nuxu7JzG5fZBFPLBbTUx8s/G8AYLbpRfNmC7nR7Xu l3Ui60u/TlD0s4xF4HHCtysSwz6/31WYb8Rw0/QWa6H5l3aWFAZEXYYc5Cl3tbnQnR/B ptgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jKPUg2oC0eSWskQbr7Xe+0SO7UBtfz7F47BTZoyX+GPfQLG0sB D0qagOdRvd0L1LYPGQMejrWZKyU0ZA==
X-Received: by 10.176.86.87 with SMTP id z23mr6879691uaa.170.1502322798857; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.22.105 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.176.22.105 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4B4511FB-5E38-46B9-870C-3882B55F852B@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <150148445751.17707.15424999122129322815@ietfa.amsl.com> <E6AC9174-3D6E-4FAD-B84B-B7E58FB149BC@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xEs6RauD6Oo_NbqOh+FRVAu3NuveewSvRx7g1hS2-ToQ@mail.gmail.com> <94BC4E17-D490-4F50-9E99-2AAA081CD43C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zR_bWPqOHM7-RNsPX78np45UV=J67YD5gbpoCPUaLkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB14455C-F00E-49A4-936F-03BD44C4D42C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com> <4939D55E-D37D-4551-9EB0-916FBACBC2BD@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <9bd9f886-f53b-109f-d998-1d4c7adaf3b1@gmail.com> <B6A257C9-7E8A-452D-9C0F-0B10A31990CB@thehobsons.co.uk> <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk> <4B4511FB-5E38-46B9-870C-3882B55F852B@thehobsons.co.uk>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:53:18 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2z5Q9wXB4BRjxFM6rKxq+M6gm4y1gnxHRdQfYhXCzVR5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045df280c3948105565ac8ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HRh1lv3VNacIqph9DGqq5oE72kY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Aug 2017 23:53:22 -0000

"Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"

https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7421.txt


On 7 Aug. 2017 8:26 pm, "Simon Hobson" <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The question though, as and as you say it’s not one really in the IETF’s
> scope, more the RIR communities, is if a site has a /48, and uses it up (or
> 16,384 /64s of it up) implementing draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host,
> will that be deemed appropriate use to allow a further assignment?
> >
> > A large university may choose to implement this on its wifi/eduroam, for
> example.
>
> Presumably that means another separate prefix. And when 2003:: is used,
> 2004:: will get allocated and so on.
> At what point will people be suggesting that we could have avoided the
> routing table bloat by allowing better use of the prefixes ?
>
> AFAICS the insistence that it must be /64 per host, rather than anything
> else (eg /80/host or /96/host) seems to be more religion than technical
> requirement.
> I can see the security (through obscurity) and privacy reasons why
> individual addresses should come from a /64 (or at least, large) prefix -
> but I fail to see much, if any, merit in allocating 2^64 addresses to a
> single host "because we can".
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email