IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@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 DF48A1B2D37 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 v_69IUMo0gCv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (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 3A9A11B2D36 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so91504139igb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GVo2Sz8dOkISbtw09TkRpCkn9QdTsy8Xis8v1bnudJ0=; b=ew5f+iD9H1/p2gYSHDs3QyjSiNffVyaQIVC+tgWF9S+qJ5UORWeXskmEqVB8BJXnPD UgZG0ZiT//iuQMqqqButE45Aw0kSySS5imyTnKVQZQj22fxP0HvLVEY/N0Oe5y3Ihd2E 4sm/xBhmq6QaHdCA0P5EWK469R7l4EQbVVHWXS6rKgcOpaCjkBOf2Dr77P+JWNNhp0bY yGsl3FwVfGUnzdyS+qdxAmJLLpAdW/w2K3AVemqgqnLCV3eUTIKBCdl7s/uCH5y1fRqt ZT/qO+6mg8JGIXJfF2NOiRmnIUcTF7J88FUgbhgTCJPZley0yCwhpLO+B3nWh0lFqPoB dlVQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.154 with SMTP id t26mr42619758ioi.13.1438003519440; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.143.20 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9C3FBC4-44F3-45D2-B8C4-3725396E5D40@nominum.com>
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>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:25:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPi140Mx96dBgeaCkrsDD+-J85OZDo5Di+gHTBiaGDzYK2us4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_2hLj_H_Y5-cTCgr9qe8mG6Im1M>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:25:23 -0000

On 7/27/15, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 6:12 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
> wrote:
>> My reasoning is, you want DHCPv6-PD for hosts if hosts are doing DHCPv6
>> because
>> otherwise they would have to obtain losts of DHCPv6 leases.
>
> You don’t want them to obtain lots of DHCPv6 leases.   Why would that be a
> good idea?   I would suggest ten as an upper limit, and that’s easily
> addressed with IA_NA.
> IA_PD would be overkill, and hosts don’t support it
> anyway.
>

The disjoint nature of IA_NA means a corresponding number of TCAM
entries is required on L3 switches.

A prefix, on the other hand, requires just an entry for the link-local
of the host + an entry for the prefix. Regardless of the prefix
length.

Thus: the scaling properties on the network hardware side are vastly different.

Also, the draft talks about twenty addresses being needed.

--a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email