Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 14 October 2021 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C7D3A17CD for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1GfxyD3YR54 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 369DD3A17A1 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q129so9426930oib.0 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=deXq2GpcjFDiQiasIq28HC7oISY8/UeeERVnMj3Kba4=; b=M6Zw1DuR6wQM4F+0kl/+ck2VUsCt+5iE7YZnQwoPqyijTpMy0vW6DOfo5VgTqQvMPT +GZUXb6tbUDwrTMueVWm9Xi4rL2uemflLCSvgRJ0Qu0v8lPlnIIsdlYi5dWF2dAzcypB KWYTJtPr/H4hgf66/nzGSTJYu+1QUkyyibntW827jaRbWS2SUbeFTvCa5GFLeC2koAFt HY2XrkcYqQvI4RQxH14O7Lkd8P2G0pt7m9zr9R/MWYJ7nlyLd5CuJZdAeHLI6Dl7l2fu aBPo2Z2aHqJg6fKtoIbUfwQEVcdpW5tF7XJEz5MYN8u+Yp1Pq8arEzAehvpWL6bvpOsh c/Xg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=deXq2GpcjFDiQiasIq28HC7oISY8/UeeERVnMj3Kba4=; b=K0tUlD1lBLdjYn75eC9F1rDoTfzMIlNvg8S+ElfEZEXPVL8e66s5gmq6mNmxad1+Zk QmLj/yz3+EiF99r7+MxnXLpo6xp8uGMnYA1RLOlcemsJwUMgn+fCb2iCty/TdJUZZdmZ YJH2uso064/tE7+tJam98bx1fAmfD6y0LKipHZVc/hOKcqI/SYqXxrWXcUqdGu4swLm3 O6lZYEET1ZwzeKaaCMpkizdjT8yBVKIfwxydauIaPCRqhSEZOY9HFP6e7Ioy7CTGmr5l vGi4yYYrZbxnZ5+tYMpVlm6LP3y+/PEfQF9jZ2iYrnVclh4H5mW6MCPW9iiyRNuO99cU XZTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531G9o23TyOsK6fXeyfnZFEEZP8lRiIdxuWq+DaCCQpHuE7B6I7o 7AheGkm5XZnYgspwN8+kgiUD8HtdK3qLrtHyonu1oxOkFMdbJg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvFA4jNwMrFbhuEp5ZOytnYZ6eYctqr01ugQ9xsLjxcBOL/ai9qUDpY3CErXyQTw5IZErashiN4jnmQKsZcxM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1aa9:: with SMTP id bm41mr4871088oib.55.1634231436000; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <YWW1ghmjueHmfCEb@Space.Net> <> <YWW8FPkRuxCBFp3o@Space.Net> <> <YWcQKwK3lAKpl7y1@Space.Net> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
Cc: Owen DeLong <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039509705ce532839"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:10:48 -0000

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:56 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=> wrote:

> A prefix to the host gives Lorenzo the addresses he needs for his
> devices.  It gives your customers the single state per logical node that
> they want. It allows to separate what netops manage (down to /64 and direct
> assignment within) and devops (whatever they do with the longer prefix they
> get for their node). It does not impose any size for what’s assigned, could
> be a different thing for each host. It means routing inside the subnet
> which removes the dreadful broadcast domain.
> I see an opportunity for consensus. Can we work that out together and
> bring a real IPv6 value?

If your proposal is that we use a /64 per host as a way to meet these
needs, I agree. This solves everybody's actual problems. There is the issue
that some people have expressed a preference for prefixes wider than 64
bits, but this is a preference—there's no technical reason to do this. It's
not wrong to have preferences, but it would be nice if we could somehow
finally put this discussion to bed.