IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Mon, 07 August 2017 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 B50BB1321BE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 WHY9S9ujbqe9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [195.30.115.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7571D1321A6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3739A4292F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:06:54 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C0442919; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:06:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 2329D24D9E; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:06:54 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 15:06:54 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170807130654.GM45648@Space.Net>
References: <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk> <3A69468C-98E4-4631-A52F-3D8772646EEE@consulintel.es> <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net> <DC0AA35C-C5B2-4FF3-B68E-6F70A8B080B5@steffann.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708071323040.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170807115341.GI45648@Space.Net> <E3859552-2F8C-42E8-B7DF-EAD20F35CFFF@jisc.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ye+fncnJnvuoUcW1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E3859552-2F8C-42E8-B7DF-EAD20F35CFFF@jisc.ac.uk>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vasrYQKFkvFU0CpkngJ7WhmiFBQ>
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:06:59 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 12:49:05PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
> There was pushback on DHCP-PD for hosts in the RFC6434-bis discussion, and DHCP-PD is not mentioned in this draft.

I'm aware of that, and of course, DHCPv6 is the worst protocol on earth.

My point could be reworded as "you need some mechanism to tell the network
what your host wants" - because whatever generic mechanism we devices that
will handle all the superspecialcase variants of "I have a complete ISP
with many levels of prefix delegation running as VMs on my routers" will
excercise pressure on the "how many /64 prefixes can we afford to keep around
for a single wifi pool?" side.


To do some reality check.

My laptop usually wants *one* IPv6 address, which better should not change
while it's attached (because it would break my SSH sessions).

If I happen to run VMs, each VM needs one IPv6 address - which didn't work
last time at all because vmware had issues bridging IPv6 to wifi (so I
used NATted IPv4 instead).

Even with all VMs I have on my laptop, I do not expect that I will ever need 
a /64 on it.

A /120 would be perfectly fine today, a /96 would be extremely spacious.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email