IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Chair decision on WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Mon, 06 November 2023 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 9BADFC1D4705 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 05:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 0iJDCU2_Xpd4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 05:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4ADC1CB007 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 05:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [152.66.143.28] (line28.v4.remote.bme.hu [152.66.143.28]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 3A6DNQKD082182 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:23:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host line28.v4.remote.bme.hu [152.66.143.28] claimed to be [152.66.143.28]
Message-ID: <96445033-9f65-4ff3-b024-ce59e9055c3a@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 14:23:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <e078c90495b54390a3fb4c7bae143b05@huawei.com> <3862530.yeFs27NDWt@asclepius.adm.tul.cz> <CAN-Dau1K6Ux0zxAhvEuNuMWXhDGZaUc+PV7Yfrm_0_LciGogWw@mail.gmail.com> <12587696.NizCu2HIMA@asclepius.adm.tul.cz> <m1qzzNF-0000VRC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <m1qzzNF-0000VRC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=152.66.143.28; helo=[152.66.143.28]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.11;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pA0aGsKpqnlrmjGsbNxY2VLfCyM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Chair decision on WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04
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: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 13:23:37 -0000

On 11/6/2023 2:10 PM, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> This was actually bit of sarcasm. The reaction to Jordi as he suggested tha
>> t we could give 1 /48 to every human on the planet and be good X years to c
>> ome. :-)
> There's a thing a I don't undestand in the current discussion. The practical
> problem we need to solve is to make sure that any device that has a
> downstream ethernet or wifi interface can connect devices on those links.
>
> Any wifi or ethernet device has an (in theory) worldwide unique 48-bit MAC
> address. Obviously there are other technologies that using 64-bit MACs, but
> the vaste majority of devices that need internet access have 48-bit MACs.
>
> So basically, the discussion is whether we can fit the space of 48-bit
> mac addresses into the space of /64 IPv6 prefixes.

To that end, we should modify SLAAC not to prepare a so-called "modified 
EUI64 identifier" from its 48-bit MAC address.

Gábor

>
> Which would require an HD-ratio of 0.75. I think that falls within historical
> requirements for allocation density.
>
> Obviously, if a (virtual) device class would be expected to be more numerous
> than ethernet-like devices, then we may need to have longer prefixes for those.
> But that the moment I don't see that happening.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.41.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status