Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52081AD351 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 6PYVZ9Dsfdtf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 894491B2A10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykdu72 with SMTP id u72so100683522ykd.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=v3A+pB3jRf2FDhQdvhnVdzMnYuKAau5gQ+MR8CLxGLk=; b=V6yMOnumLVA1sMuGlmHqlfAxPXMMatJ51uEPM8tpQjnCqM7hvmD+jFHFMkbDw1QcTE 7vZfwCgy6v5WSnOZghW/AF65cwiA86qQlYfaOupLPacRYcTWMkle6vHPsxYinBiMblPh 122FHr2waU3Jlt8sqwfIwypxzduuXu325pnVLR93sA1K4DiXbcwJjfMVY5YI0s5xoPq2 fHxljVs3c8lqhwkx752tULjiZfTCzbw2yHB1C+TJIpXqF7YbCb5bx6Z7ihwLWqZBAL7m c/CEvpe/Oa9PsLR17k+8kHIQ1CeOuP/vWfI7o4r0auZ85Z7IWsIWh75fwdt5IkkZ6/I1 K3rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=v3A+pB3jRf2FDhQdvhnVdzMnYuKAau5gQ+MR8CLxGLk=; b=SCUtKbB+SNlJp7j7oEr9leruiYqF2sRxo02aRHUybYEDqnixcq7X6TuKwq8XkImmVx 99r7ySJLjKsCXmPBG9f06lA6/iSgZz5gmxB7IouMTS/ZTkW4zY2Ilo/HtQfJUL0IaJtD klgp2BY+/8axDIkLyqv5Hkh9JHLTMYSGbzi7DBgXrhdHk+eeaETKMDw8TUEhWhdpDC6/ hg3wNcn94aDP7CCfq8rPpvZXgV8UBo6JPQeOqRGXnfWy2rz5eRHHFUP1zMWJO5SFnwTL JbI2Lc7/ah5ELHDwOrm1ykxXnyRgI3j/8gmCmEyeWqgSkbpgke2EPv0aaSZFaqSg45YM BAmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5eFvtfg0p2LXYiPowgsjbdFSlGt0VtUM2GF5z0qBQO83h0jE7sXp0qIhVARqc8/Q88XlL
X-Received: by 10.129.108.2 with SMTP id h2mr37949154ywc.161.1438102297835; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.8.201 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4AB2ED61-23CF-40D5-B2A6-F1F4064EC0C6@nominum.com>
References: <20150723130715.12113.47480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55B1ED14.6030501@gmail.com> <m1ZIZ4w-0000CbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com> <m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20150727091241.GL84167@Space.Net> <m1ZJfOr-0000CgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <C9C3FBC4-44F3-45D2-B8C4-3725396E5D40@nominum.com> <CAPi140Mx96dBgeaCkrsDD+-J85OZDo5Di+gHTBiaGDzYK2us4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150728115944.GZ84167@Space.Net> <CAPi140PKh64L=nr96pv3dn7FO_Y9pW162YzBT8kZHSMsedGYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <BE811683-3BBA-40F0-B047-282DA7E774AA@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr3pHBRk+BTOJOOSC=c6M4FNaumGEKwHvFW=ThED7M744g@mail.gmail.com> <4AB2ED61-23CF-40D5-B2A6-F1F4064EC0C6@nominum.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 01:51:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3-omr_M7pU9TgoECGnTGf-ta64UcE8ddbAom-rB8exZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dae7a9d2690051bf24802"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nnZWt10A-PyOeWOJpHzh6OF_o1g>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:51:46 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> Do you buy my theory about just using a /120 to aggregate a bunch of
> addresses, or no?
>

Well but if if you give a laptop or a device a /120, what is it going to
give its downstream devices / VMs when sharing its internet connection with
them? Does it have to implement a stateful DHCPv6 server and force its
downstream devices/VMs to use it? At that point, the network it offered
would be violating recommendations made in the draft.

A /64 is better because it allows connection sharing mechanisms such as ND
proxying and /64 share which also do not pose hard limits to the number of
addresses a downstream device may have.

A /64 also isn't that much space: the space implications for enterprise
networks are pretty much the same as what we do for IPv4 today (i.e., a
large enterprise that needs all of 10/8 gets 16M endpoints) - except that
the address space implications for the Internet are much better than IPv4
today because said large enterprise with 16M endpoints will only need a
/40, and there are quite a lot of those.