IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Fri, 04 August 2017 08:18 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 68A4D128A32 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.197 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 OIQlqgU8AfJk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (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 E4977126B6D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x10so3477195vkd.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 01:18:44 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kZH5F/lpr2iEFkWH5qKaysE0QTvcztdR29VKTINyeCk=; b=TwDFalEkK1kE6efuRhOHQlU5T7pU7IftGBUAf0iPIDCf+K/D7K7NbWe0AHNY12yxL1 IEYkTkQrYLiSrHAEYC17F/341zzER28GELuFQvh8QcquVdhI6GbfIkX31J8jggmyMYbo arV+yQAXJMuPHL2ePQTJlTgNEiq0oykqJtkmUGlxcbu8VbOht2AzBbeB+4uNlnEqZ0ym ISsjksk/zeZcIajch7hzgLF5UU0GMcMNPYKDSSw7fnho5fFUaNgMpMDOKOtMFHofn7Ar ZQsVxLQJ3X7Ta4iS2f0Lme7QHLhbeiFVz0j+OhpDAsiUqNnsM043dIBae86fQxLQIT5L o3yg==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kZH5F/lpr2iEFkWH5qKaysE0QTvcztdR29VKTINyeCk=; b=IzUWlapx2vzpw9zECUSnam6dL60fmBXN9TZ6Mfa9Dc/qgPDjbijwOIOFYwYaXypJSD zxR3pXsvooFh4/DqBu7YQws8Cruq9NcNXQy3sk7gV1Zf7xW3XC944o9vh1+LhJLSSQFo U0sd8wm/GAqfiU7tS7h1whVK9TmP5oCHQ2oB7MtGIGILFTTNJb6fzBj7Y1yQkMAEaPAU K3pmVJqbFjLdRCrsRcw9bPflQAxJJk9GbYmob42mWPh/wmG+UXZ/ykjjc/41ciVaEPIs 4vUdAQi19IHD6EAaKSMJDQcCffALMDWkEhrWTpda3acFLgBKEDrolSGVNvBTm5TnA/Ey v3yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5ih8DzgtsOhM93kIBtXfkYB7G4kN3+wgAhoi9slPHln2fOA1X6T g7TkBzpSuvUxSj9xPkzWyXzVNtaiFw==
X-Received: by 10.31.84.130 with SMTP id i124mr921622vkb.41.1501834724059; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 01:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.18.105 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FB14455C-F00E-49A4-936F-03BD44C4D42C@gmail.com>
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>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:18:13 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/SDGIrFGDcB74bdn8RVV2YSTskdM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: 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: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:18:46 -0000

On 4 August 2017 at 17:01, DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Then… is the number ‘/64’ of this document a MUST or MAY?
>
> For example, I might like to assign to each nodes in my site /96 prefix instead of /64.
>

Why specifically might you like to assign /96s? What benefit do you get?

If you don't have enough /64s for one for each host, then somebody
upstream is being unnecessarily miserly with IPv6 address space.

> Is this prohibited by this document? Or is ‘/64’ mentioned in the document only an example?
>

No. /64s as the subnet size as been the common edge subnet/IID
boundary for almost 20 years since RFC2373.

Variable length subnetmasking and CIDR in IPv4 was a work around to
not having enough addressing bits (as were address classes and
subnets) for how the Internet Protocols ended up being used -
initially it was a research project protocol that became an
unmitigated success.

Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7421.txt

Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email