Re: [v6ops] Clarification on draft-linkova-v6ops-ipmaclimi

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

So, here is the second draft I mentioned:
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-collink-v6ops-ent64pd/

This is a real "-00", not a "-00 ready for the WGLC" - references and
typos will be fixed later. The goal of publishing so early draft is to
start collecting the feedback as early as possible.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 5:52 AM Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think I shall clarify a few things regarding the draft.
>
> 1. I totally agree that it would be awesome to prevent all those ND
> issues, and save memory on devices. Nobody argues with that.
> 2. I do love /64 per host idea, but until two hours ago I was under
> the impression that there is no way we can get that deployed any time
> soon. Well, I was wrong. Please give me ~48 hrs to write down the
> idea.
> 3 I'd like to ask the reviewers not to focus too much on the address
> assignment method and look at the section 3, which contains 4
> sentences. Basically what I'm proposing doesn't fundamentally change
> anything (see #2 above). What the draft is suggesting is:
> - change the *default* value for the limit which exists today.
> - make that limit configurable (so operators might even *lower* it if
> they are concerned about resources).
> - log an error message if it happens (to improve the failure mode - at
> least the operator would know!)
> - optimize the cache entries rotations.
>
> I hope there are no objections to at least 3 out of those 4 bullet
> points, especially as I promise to work on the strategy to get us out
> of this situation long-term ;)
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry