Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 14 October 2021 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 77C7D3A17CD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 g1GfxyD3YR54 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::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 369DD3A17A1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q129so9426930oib.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <CAKD1Yr10OKMJ1y8bs5xpt6jS8ZWsqs66oFCXmp-QLySS5Yn4hg@mail.gmail.com> <5DF8D1AE-4B54-429F-962A-488F2AA1F895@delong.com> <CAPt1N1ma45GKqXcvjHUGCYFKVbEGp3OuT013pZhrnOkFFLMiQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2Pe+=tNkA7Ou9KeMkgFhcdSb8WxgVn1w9MauusMEhRcw@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB4881076DFF8A145C8CD818B8D8B69@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A188D974-3CEB-497F-93EA-B66C77D2CA90@delong.com> <YWW1ghmjueHmfCEb@Space.Net> <m1maKp6-0000I3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <YWW8FPkRuxCBFp3o@Space.Net> <D0510DEB-04FF-4864-9363-6FC40C686C22@delong.com> <YWcQKwK3lAKpl7y1@Space.Net> <DFD526B0-7CA3-4445-910F-425142C0AEDA@delong.com> <802A4F47-5DB0-4986-894D-2B20BA09FF24@cisco.com> <36CB5B2A-2469-4E51-9536-D16B66BE3B6E@delong.com> <778CB8A4-7F82-4792-A347-27C6C5A70624@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <778CB8A4-7F82-4792-A347-27C6C5A70624@cisco.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:09:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=wcJN+ucPR0x7NuG6DYk=Z6zdPEMSSg8L3GkE90-16KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039509705ce532839"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VEAQPzD2DqNejIocSpZBKGfiW_w>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:10:48 -0000

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:56 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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.