IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B5C1B2D7C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 FINL-vyRAErz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (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 B4FAA1B2D7F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so171710030wib.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tdb4bupR6gcE5ceoJK3RQVXBQMZd2GXWXWS3EtGt4H0=; b=nNZXtCF8hrSEhlZAXbCP9lrEkd7C5LejJ5ViSdSx15t7NzEViozRQ2VRrIlxMs139y 2KTuriWOjFl1sLQHO57Y4bcnE2syW0KKkwO4DP9LBDrVNeitmEJUmesCJp5Mu9q/CX2b 1Yll3EAZ8ps6V02S4LMQ2jBodIL9m+udkjWuiMJB6K+KKsbCoC6RvzE4Tr678Uc254C6 S73S2VuNm6gUhcxoThOCAfxkE8uY37Z3m+lcC+a5puGH+Z2Gl9qaK2PhteWAQ6l/Oyaj ITRreKiwyj90bySzKoFWGCvxm9TlNQp9UAOWosdIfmcW6MqwXryh/970zMlYjiqrrVkZ tcFw==
X-Received: by 10.194.172.8 with SMTP id ay8mr68028507wjc.106.1438108600453; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (cpc11-brig18-2-0-cust561.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.100.118.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gc4sm20297193wib.23.2015.07.28.11.36.38 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55B7CBB9.2050107@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:36:41 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <20150723130715.12113.47480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55B1ED14.6030501@gmail.com> <m1ZIZ4w-0000CbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com> <m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20150727091241.GL84167@Space.Net> <m1ZJfOr-0000CgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <C9C3FBC4-44F3-45D2-B8C4-3725396E5D40@nominum.com> <CAPi140Mx96dBgeaCkrsDD+-J85OZDo5Di+gHTBiaGDzYK2us4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150728115944.GZ84167@Space.Net> <CAPi140PKh64L=nr96pv3dn7FO_Y9pW162YzBT8kZHSMsedGYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <BE811683-3BBA-40F0-B047-282DA7E774AA@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr3pHBRk+BTOJOOSC=c6M4FNaumGEKwHvFW=ThED7M744g@mail.gmail.com> <4AB2ED61-23CF-40D5-B2A6-F1F4064EC0C6@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr3-omr_M7pU9TgoECGnTGf-ta64UcE8ddbAom-rB8exZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3-omr_M7pU9TgoECGnTGf-ta64UcE8ddbAom-rB8exZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/RIMYCTJX2N6uA-jgxKOAa3aNc4c>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 28 Jul 2015 18:36:45 -0000

On 29/07/2015 04:51, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> 
>> Do you buy my theory about just using a /120 to aggregate a bunch of
>> addresses, or no?
>>
> 
> Well but if if you give a laptop or a device a /120, what is it going to
> give its downstream devices / VMs when sharing its internet connection with
> them? Does it have to implement a stateful DHCPv6 server and force its
> downstream devices/VMs to use it? At that point, the network it offered
> would be violating recommendations made in the draft.

Not to mention encountering the problems with /120 mentioned
in RFC 7421, which include the problems of only having a /24 in
IPv4. We should be past that.

   Brian

> 
> A /64 is better because it allows connection sharing mechanisms such as ND
> proxying and /64 share which also do not pose hard limits to the number of
> addresses a downstream device may have.
> 
> A /64 also isn't that much space: the space implications for enterprise
> networks are pretty much the same as what we do for IPv4 today (i.e., a
> large enterprise that needs all of 10/8 gets 16M endpoints) - except that
> the address space implications for the Internet are much better than IPv4
> today because said large enterprise with 16M endpoints will only need a
> /40, and there are quite a lot of those.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email