IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 07 August 2017 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A9FFE1321A7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 bq25lJ8QJBvH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FA8513201F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3525DA3; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1502105689; bh=iT/CFdxkKZcXYFCJ+KGxaGvy6FueC71DtoU5aazDVJA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ki6EaDKW5Qf8cF6D8m41vrRk5mS9TiXoLZuZIbRrExY9weQvr09l7WYPuTgDEbyiZ HUtZapOzjREvbf1AfYLs0yiz85+nIyXgTmBoWnd+z9S1fKLKHDlFOCU8v1at4eX8b8 meLpGkqSaIAIBE87tiNSX766HzPE75dtjJCI5kck=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DEDA2; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:34:49 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
cc: Gert Döring <gert@space.net>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DC0AA35C-C5B2-4FF3-B68E-6F70A8B080B5@steffann.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708071323040.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com> <4939D55E-D37D-4551-9EB0-916FBACBC2BD@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <9bd9f886-f53b-109f-d998-1d4c7adaf3b1@gmail.com> <B6A257C9-7E8A-452D-9C0F-0B10A31990CB@thehobsons.co.uk> <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk> <3A69468C-98E4-4631-A52F-3D8772646EEE@consulintel.es> <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net> <DC0AA35C-C5B2-4FF3-B68E-6F70A8B080B5@steffann.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/f2Bk8uZVntSGRnnlZ4xuVuJRdlQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:34:52 -0000

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Sander Steffann wrote:

> I agree. Sticking to /64 for subnets is fine. Delegating prefixes to 
> hosts is also fine, but they don't have to (shouldn't) be /64. A /96 per 
> host sounds about right. When acting as a router (connection sharing, 
> running VMs etc) the need for separate subnets (= /64s) comes back, but 
> for individual host behaviour a /96 should be fine.

Our problem is that we can't tell which is which.

The laptop I show up at IETF meeting with normally has its own host stack, 
plus at least 2 other VMs running, sometimes more.

How should the network differentiate me from "just a single host" when I 
connect to the IETF wifi?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email