IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 C2A731A1B72 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 WMJLKtUfNvb0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF0DD1A1B62 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5C2DA0089; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:51:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.178] (71.233.41.235) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:51:56 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40E3BF3C-FC5C-4F3C-B45E-37631C4276C7"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0ghiut1LQ8dpUe+wxVMW=9a4J5doktnFqomRN_i1Qh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:51:54 -0400
Message-ID: <53007642-4C18-4AF5-B986-4704A7D99D0F@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> <CAKD1Yr3-omr_M7pU9TgoECGnTGf-ta64UcE8ddbAom-rB8exZA@mail.gmail.com> <90E6B48E-B3FC-4AAD-B356-7D92A2777632@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1+u0hvGC=NJfgW10hnsbWZYCx6Biz2_GjV5FSa+aEz8g@mail.gmail.com> <66040967-4EB3-424D-B21D-9C0CC489A5D6@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0ghiut1LQ8dpUe+wxVMW=9a4J5doktnFqomRN_i1Qh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pVcSka_A3IvjbJ6mLhN1lWEZRvs>
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:51:58 -0000

On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> DHCPv6 is not the issue. The issue that we're recommending that networks provide enough addresses *at connection time*. If we recommend that networks should assign every device a /120 (256 addresses) *at connection time*, then a device getting the /120 cannot respect the recommendations with respect to any nodes behind it.

I don’t think we are talking about the same thing.   You are proposing that if we use SLAAC, the host initially gets however many addresses it acquires through SLAAC, typically 1 per prefix, but you propose that it might want, say, 20 or 30.   But if it uses DHCP, it gets a /64.   That’s 18 decimal orders of magnitude more addresses in the DHCP case.   Why the disparity?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email