Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-01

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:55 PM Daryll Swer <contact=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> David
>
> > The existence of a few shorter prefixes doesn’t invalidate the choice of
>> a /20. I think that is plenty lager of an allocation for this purpose.
>
> I don't see anyone saying the /20 is invalidated for any reason. I just
> don't see 100% certainty that a /20 documentation prefix is
> “future-proofed” for more complex/larger networks in the future, especially
> when we account for potential future space communication networks, I think
> it is safe to say that future IPv6 subnetting plans wouldn't be limited to
> just terrestrial networks between continents.
>

I do tend to agree with David that the allocation doesn't necessarily need
to be totally "future proof". Since we can't really tell the future that
would be a guess anyway, and wouldn't be any more or less accurate than
what we've chosen. What we considered is what would solve problems today
and provide some breathing room for the next "N" amount of years. If we
decide that what we've asked for is enough, and in 10 or 20 years that is
decided too require some revisiting, we can certainly do this process
again.
To me at least, the goal is "maximum value" while still being reasonable.
Of course, "Maximum", "value" and "reasonable" are all subjective, so we
rely on the list to provide valuable input to help come to something we can
all live with.


>
> > Questions about the particular allocation mentioned below are really
>> inappropriate for this mailing list, and would be more appropriate for
>> ARIN’s PPML mailing list. Nevertheless, such justifications have never been
>> and probably never will be public documents. I trust ARIN’s policies have
>> been followed. Again questioning the policies involved is not really
>> appropriate for this mailing list either.
>
> My intention was not to question the RIR's allocation policies,
> whatsoever. My intention was to spread awareness aimed towards the draft's
> authors and other readers, on possibly updating section 2 to match the
> up-to-date info, I think this is *perfectly appropriate* for this mailing
> list. To my understanding, one of the draft's authors has confirmed,
> outside this mailing list platform, that they'll look into the new info.
>

It is definitely good to understand the landscape of the everyday. I think
this was a good find and an interesting development and I am glad it was
brought to the attention so that we know what is happening in production
environments.


>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com <https://www.daryllswer.com>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 01:43, David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> The existence of a few shorter prefixes doesn’t invalidate the choice of
>> a /20. I think that is plenty lager of an allocation for this purpose.
>>
>> Questions about the particular allocation mentioned below are really
>> inappropriate for this mailing list, and would be more appropriate for
>> ARIN’s PPML mailing list. Nevertheless, such justifications have never been
>> and probably never will be public documents. I trust ARIN’s policies have
>> been followed. Again questioning the policies involved is not really
>> appropriate for this mailing list either.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 13:06 Daryll Swer <contact=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in favour of the draft moving forward overall, but few points to
>>> consider:
>>>
>>> 1. Regarding section 2, it appears the largest assignment is a /16
>>> (2630::/16), a fairly new assignment—
>>> https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET6-2630-2
>>> > "The four largest assignments made to end users have been /19s"
>>>
>>> 2. Momoka Yamamoto's question on whether a /20 is sufficient or not, in
>>> my opinion, is a valid question. Whilst it is likely true, that for most
>>> realistic network planning and documentation a /20 would suffice, but
>>> whether a /20 documentation prefix would suffice for the future ahead,
>>> remains unclear in my personal opinion.
>>>
>>> *--*
>>> Best Regards
>>> Daryll Swer
>>> Website: daryllswer.com
>>> <https://mailtrack.io/link/4e654ad52f927e0fb467a8318aa5d0f3738df0ed?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&userId=2153471&signature=3fcde618c12233cf>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>