Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 14 October 2021 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 8B8E23A17BF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 fEQb3ADL0lLm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4063A17BE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-5225.bb.online.no [95.34.0.166]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 993124E11A4F; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:07:50 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F6515FB0-C725-43E1-900E-931AD24BF894
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:07:46 +0200
Message-Id: <4577684E-FF06-4C48-B70A-FA832D28BE02@employees.org>
References: <CAPt1N1=wcJN+ucPR0x7NuG6DYk=Z6zdPEMSSg8L3GkE90-16KA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, v6ops@ietf.org, Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=wcJN+ucPR0x7NuG6DYk=Z6zdPEMSSg8L3GkE90-16KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19A404)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jv97ORMhvLaLDGE_UanCD9opd-A>
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 19:07:57 -0000


> On 14 Oct 2021, at 19:11, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.

Limiting networks that are assigned a /56 to only 256 logical nodes is a non starter. 

O.