IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 07 August 2017 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 2AC0913219F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 XRa7XMQU_V2E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 4B7FF13219E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51C149; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1502104866; bh=sMwk6nvnFpj5D0vqNyj Jrclb4ToZhilojK0SJqj/x54=; b=LL2uAvHsSVOHrutZY5iJl0TpD+ckFFZmYj3 s9ba0ju982ZBFTIif56TtBNUTvfGN1CqXNyXmS9O+LY4gvGJrldZXKZWt7LdETnO XficukyXIAAqTFFwY0tpQicDNkXVJoKx75FuC/rsgG0yvaAICisjyYj4JRzvirp3 Ws3MmfGw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6y0XPeOGhk7p; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:21:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:b480:757a:d3e8:3380:2cf5] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:b480:757a:d3e8:3380:2cf5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2BC33C; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:21:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <DC0AA35C-C5B2-4FF3-B68E-6F70A8B080B5@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46625299-14D6-43F3-B1D3-FAA39AE05CE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:21:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net>
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Gert Döring <gert@space.net>
References: <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> <3A69468C-98E4-4631-A52F-3D8772646EEE@consulintel.es> <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Q4_aXBHBCZCol0MEZWcHGvoyuvg>
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:21:46 -0000

Hi,

> A /64 per *host* is much less bound - while far beyond anything you can
> configure on that host, so the trade-off "waste vs. useful number of bits"
> is not reasonable for me.

I agree. Sticking to /64 for subnets is fine. Delegating prefixes to hosts is also fine, but they don't have to (shouldn't) be /64. A /96 per host sounds about right. When acting as a router (connection sharing, running VMs etc) the need for separate subnets (= /64s) comes back, but for individual host behaviour a /96 should be fine.

> Should this topic come up in RIPE policy discussion, I'll chair the
> discussion and refrain from having an opinion, but will reserve the right
> for a "told you so" later.

:-)
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email