IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Mon, 07 August 2017 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
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 BADA113201A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Ud_Zs4x9zSGU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [80.229.10.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B6A124217 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (lan.furness.net [84.9.59.220]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7AD11A071 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:26:22 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:26:21 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B4511FB-5E38-46B9-870C-3882B55F852B@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <150148445751.17707.15424999122129322815@ietfa.amsl.com> <E6AC9174-3D6E-4FAD-B84B-B7E58FB149BC@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xEs6RauD6Oo_NbqOh+FRVAu3NuveewSvRx7g1hS2-ToQ@mail.gmail.com> <94BC4E17-D490-4F50-9E99-2AAA081CD43C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zR_bWPqOHM7-RNsPX78np45UV=J67YD5gbpoCPUaLkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB14455C-F00E-49A4-936F-03BD44C4D42C@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zLgw3cYapf=1y9pm4cWMZZ32DT2ryfPb6BGUFjCfmrMg@mail.gmail.com> <4939D55E-D37D-4551-9EB0-916FBACBC2BD@thehobsons.co.uk> <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>
To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/woJ9gQJT2GB_yvpuTSzbDalRzRI>
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 10:26:29 -0000

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> The question though, as and as you say it’s not one really in the IETF’s scope, more the RIR communities, is if a site has a /48, and uses it up (or 16,384 /64s of it up) implementing draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, will that be deemed appropriate use to allow a further assignment?
> 
> A large university may choose to implement this on its wifi/eduroam, for example.

Presumably that means another separate prefix. And when 2003:: is used, 2004:: will get allocated and so on.
At what point will people be suggesting that we could have avoided the routing table bloat by allowing better use of the prefixes ?

AFAICS the insistence that it must be /64 per host, rather than anything else (eg /80/host or /96/host) seems to be more religion than technical requirement.
I can see the security (through obscurity) and privacy reasons why individual addresses should come from a /64 (or at least, large) prefix - but I fail to see much, if any, merit in allocating 2^64 addresses to a single host "because we can".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email