IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 August 2017 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
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 1737213218F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ywnhS8WbD2jp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 4CB2A1320BB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g131so106908893oic.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=K+wSZJCx6QQS4zBUjEBx1o9rsPSQIG5nZjtfzwZA3UU=; b=dfr/oRcgm9MReCEzTJdqATExd1MM4ONecBaEq/rEBcTGgwW9HnQPMq/0AZ4n3sv/67 vOfgoY+8MJ3rSuYSAyPV5jnaVq00zXfQ7+h7+XnKE8d3UsM+suegDOHis2AIsFZoldHL HgKoEDsc2PKzVbyNtiB4rais5HzSC7SG79yM5WHpNlRvqei8rUftu6N0/RACPhGGaNL6 fr/OYmY7g4pbxRrk/Ols7kVnEUMbH676V5R42T2vmdO8DM8Kz+695dvZ7MDYc8VJgZ9d rEwGRT3eqDSs3SG8M8176FoDAQMr/Jy6ubcTNAWnKSiedMNlOoze+mYBEGgGdfIEF+E9 dktw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=K+wSZJCx6QQS4zBUjEBx1o9rsPSQIG5nZjtfzwZA3UU=; b=UeODL0xk0+9ioJPmzqCAjCwPSpgyQ7dhoNJHM8YKzFUkry5qEnvzFetEM5jDFxrEi9 GkgOpnqotgd+LUAIx84/9IWB2XcLVaFMZvxiTiSwdx2kmtIosuYJOLJU1k85Lvkq2VSr +n9jn2I+qidkOrMgo0mDmGwl78dFbUB7OOWQ3vZPPIzTblkcv6obXapXYYfP/Dd2nC1e eZqjzHvrlkHeBzm0ewK/ULwpN1TcphXzYYr2G/NharbqBGpBNXE8xlQ+/S7Ugw0LClb0 gJSblh9Rw5YwiZomKf2Zq4rzLNunM4CQn2GXEk+n0ELbd68/xZUhxgVzFHErKGQRD+yX MsMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jtHFYN/PemcGRIxGNueXeYSlb5H8Kul/wcolG8jWnppKbmWCny PZJ8RotrWlWW5rEeGKw=
X-Received: by 10.202.69.70 with SMTP id s67mr12027641oia.22.1503086737568; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:1e::1281? ([2600:8802:5600:1e::1281]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t76sm8755506oit.5.2017.08.18.13.05.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.3\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <85066e19-4dbc-f408-4a00-c5b6d7b73d20@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:05:34 -0700
Cc: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26F2B05C-7697-48D0-8445-5627E22BCAAE@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <20170810055819.GQ45648@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xtfsYbw+Wf=ZjyFCmnDbhL17QCkWWRJ7F1+BgGCRiipg@mail.gmail.com> <51268C23-40F4-4476-9025-A1DD3BA37BC3@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAKD1Yr0uBU-LczaZJ5SdNpb_FpB0qfZJ0kNnr=gEviD+F3DTZw@mail.gmail.com> <B13F6A0A-BF0A-404B-A332-5A228F4AFC07@thehobsons.co.uk> <7CB3B027-714C-4F18-8AD9-E76060137891@employees.org> <DCFE724E-B207-4527-82A1-5A268AC29989@gmail.com> <E673D8E0-7A55-490C-8316-77E178026C58@employees.org> <82CBE1F8-F9A5-463F-8DB1-B92E5A3F6582@gmail.com> <009d739f-f1e3-0212-c105-48f16768e0d0@gmail.com> <85D0C0DD-D09D-4DE9-A8A7-42C04071484B@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcimqX+L+F9SvZVNYV_Aj9NXVovbs=XzunfS9qDbiJw2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1Lcp5P2m7rvKTfuYXv=k1k5z_9q4RyJkWCfZzgjG0b9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd31N6bTZtXRcLtamqCfdeDEHjDHRjVonoN6v-tTyf5qA@mail.gmail.com> <7c03f1c5-8930-6930-9f93-ddfb85c8e825@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcUXF3gfU_tOtO4La1NV6sCHRR1BH7qVA_nt=qtDK342g@mail.gmail.com> <85066e19-4dbc-f408-4a00-c5b6d7b73d20@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/u32XMdb_Diz7VWXtpz8qJjtIE2I>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:05:40 -0000

Hat off...

Why not simply say "a prefix"? We are perpetually wrapped around an axle with the prefix length, but reading this 20 years from now (which is the perspective one should take in writing an RFC - what will it mean when it's history?) I don't see why they would worry about the exact length someone wanted to assign within their own boundaries.

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 18/08/2017 à 20:46, 神明達哉 a écrit :
>> At Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:50 +0200, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> In any event, my point below was that as long as this draft talks about a live practice using today's standards, it doesn't make sense
>> to discuss whether the choice in those standards (i.e., 64-bit IID) is good/bad in that context.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Maybe the 64bit IID is not a matter of this draft, since this draft is
> about prefixes.
> 
> The IID length should be discussed in the other WG.
> 
> Here, still it makes sense to allow for prefixes shorter than 64 (i.e.
> unique /63 prefix per Host, such that it can further grow the network by
> becoming a Router).
> 
> The draft says:
>> a Unique IPv6 prefix (currently a /64 prefix) and some flags.
> 
> That "currently a /64" sounds as a hardcoded value.
> 
> It should be something like: "a variable length whose value could be /56 for example; it could also be /64".
> 
> Alex
> 
>> If we want to have that discussion that should take place somewhere else (and not even appropriate for v6ops in general, since changing that would be most likely to involve a protocol change).  Especially so when such a discussion always leads to a non-productive
>> repetition of stating different opinions.
>>>> I'm not sure why we are talking about our favorite topic of 64-bit (or not) IIDs here:-)  This thread is even more inappropriate for that topic than 4291bis (even where it's out
>>>> of scope as it's not feasible to change that as part of promoting
>>>> it to IS).  People who want to discuss the endless IID length
>>>> debate should really aware of the scope of the topic.
>> -- JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email