IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

DaeYoung KIM <dykim6@gmail.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dykim6@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 4F61D132454 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 4F96qKhvhkl8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com (mail-pg0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) (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 CC7F21201F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y129so7945908pgy.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:19 -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=a0nub0LowuPZBBtfRUkp+8D+ZaftBLK0T0QrZ2IRXIM=; b=XZaIBZ4Xkm1pQuoxM3LC/pXhaYJvQ8kN+xy2X4Ov0aPEoENUewFMfq0npQXEI/lyTL 6wOA1w7aSsemf/3HRO6r5QlkWnUUfL2YbapIYdBctfc+N8Pozfox2do3krUULknuDLyt mNy751T8VOR+l/3Hj/qGLBfKPU+MTf0AMBxuqTXdPY6+S3b6qgjPb0Tp5Tw0hwM0pERl qi8yNtHytGC7iO7o0sGUm2I6dO4iCeaxZmPjEQPMDQ+LEdgEpxy4R3YOkOI0hq68oxQW jYhvjm4onbU3HE6UCRyzA2vys0ZC/i61QUNlDLI3V0Nei5d5GQ+t9aWf2ULTqT7BGLP3 TsTA==
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=a0nub0LowuPZBBtfRUkp+8D+ZaftBLK0T0QrZ2IRXIM=; b=kqWaFKP8tKRYCLaiQSOxfSHRBVTDF7jGV51LKr5mhR9dHUG6oZcie4EF6c1puOX0dT FdnsGgEa2gU7cXlscoqStQN+2kknZXj9H9gSbIs+onP+qc/GjHz+tylrjK7cBi73ZtBs 6K2VJYnSlz468dYIatXKPaT9csUTnsEW58kBd4PL9mKcvl2ctJJniKVv97WY8xGogoa/ eoiFR8V8TaAv26/FCMJYubBYXVgDyP4LMnu1gH+TzU/b+bD7cn9NcDqn0XdHvxM1ToGX 2CRFdhIvaACRsv/5iuxSQDLRwYwwRoPnTun3SEkRhSVvjAgHDqtn2jxVDZz/rrrfeOSg kJTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gFVjDKqYX5XH2qyFXuxOPcVrAeMn/PGJphzyQrAoJPpoI0GEfM cOd1LPXc7qJrcA==
X-Received: by 10.99.160.25 with SMTP id r25mr3752089pge.6.1502946499364; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.68.118.228] ([39.7.58.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a125sm4078162pgc.37.2017.08.16.22.08.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-37666411-AB96-4B32-AF9E-690A2EDCE828"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: DaeYoung KIM <dykim6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G60)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1sCuJdkO8+DyythdxsfZgdYA10oASmn66rtZrQNr-yiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:08:15 +0900
Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7A6949B4-C49A-4E3A-BA0E-1465AEB61115@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <9bd9f886-f53b-109f-d998-1d4c7adaf3b1@gmail.com> <B6A257C9-7E8A-452D-9C0F-0B10A31990CB@thehobsons.co.uk> <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> <CAO42Z2xXXjKUZ8qQY+b1NgDagX2ZJkqL5gieD+_js59ucp0EMw@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> <85DFAB58-149C-405E-A497-3CBB497828B4@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1sCuJdkO8+DyythdxsfZgdYA10oASmn66rtZrQNr-yiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wEgfFRDwbbcRFr2yP_9x4RSzzCo>
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:08:21 -0000

I'm afraid I don't get you exactly here, but I'll try inline...

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Aug 2017, at 11:50, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
> No, that doesn't work for two reasons:
> The "internal" hosts now have sub-par network connectivity that they cannot share any further with hosts behind them.
The /64 host in my scenario in fact now behaves as a router and distributes /96 prefixes to internal devices. E2E connections don't terminate at the /64 node but at /96 devices.

No NAT at the /64 node for e2e connections for /96 devices.
> As soon as enough hosts accept a /96 prefix length, a network operator that wants to limit address space can simply assign a /96 to the main host.
Confused.

/96 prefixes are handed out by a /64 host, not by a network operator.
> That makes it impossible for these internal hosts to share their own connectivity without NAT.
No NAT necessary as I described above.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email