IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Fri, 16 December 2022 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 092E4C175B54; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:59:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J6A_5EWlQK-e; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B1CC175B4C; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NYLxj3xdHz6HJY4; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:55:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.34; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:59:25 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.034; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:59:25 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
CC: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org" <draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org>, "xiaom@google.com" <xiaom@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHZEDnOF5bVdeWrNUmrOPEmMfer3q5u1MkAgACxGACAAKFaUA==
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 07:59:25 +0000
Message-ID: <1644a0656b284cfc886e5d8a41f49ef7@huawei.com>
References: <167107554671.48477.568330207202509840@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BATp=gEB3S8AzhCYDMN3fzLQrYY9pzcWJ=LQnrjC9bRKEA@mail.gmail.com> <Y5sy2ikgQEWSnCsM@Space.Net> <CAFU7BARgifbN0eOLoBi+KPTTsTjuSODti2FgepVrJZjQUY-dqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARgifbN0eOLoBi+KPTTsTjuSODti2FgepVrJZjQUY-dqA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.205.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/i9kE4Wil_hZ4RGdvdTtbJ7evUsg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 16 Dec 2022 07:59:33 -0000

I prefer "the solution SHOULD support prefix between /96 and /64".
MUST is not appropriate here because no global disaster happen if somebody would assign /100. It is not good but not fatal.
Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jen Linkova
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 4:19 AM
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>; draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd@ietf.org; xiaom@google.com
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd-01.txt

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:44 AM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> I do not think that a /64 per host is reasonable address usage.

Well, when we assign /64 per vlan, most of those addresses are not used either, right?

> To implement this, network admins need not only to add v6 subnets to 
> broadcast segments but also add pools of sizeable size, which does 
> create pressure in the /48.../64 range of the addresses they have 
> ("one /48 per site").

Even 1 /48 per site gives you 65K /64s.
Also I do not think that "one /48 per site" is set in stone. It's mostly because you can't assign less if you want local ISP egress - but nothing would prevent you from assigning more.

> Something like a /96 per host - so "limitless amounts of host would 
> fit into a single /64" would avoid that, and still fulfill the stated 
> necessity of having many many many addresses per hosts.

Am I right that smth like "the prefix MUST be at least /96 but SHOULD be /64" would make you less unhappy about the proposal?


--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email