Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:12:23 -0400

> A /128 breaks IPv6 Privacy Addresses (RFC3041).  Every device 
> needs a /64 
> to allow this mechanism to be used.
> 
> Bob

Alternative mechanisms could permit interface IDs to be shorter than 64
bits, for example 48 bits or far fewer than that. Interface IDs only
need to be unique within a given subnet, and subnets with long prefixes
could be small enough to make the uniqueness requirement easy to
achieve. And also resolve the privacy concern in RFC 3041, by not
creating interface IDs that are likely to be globally unique?

If we're quibbling about conserving address space by assigning 56 vs 48
bit prefixes to individual sites, imagine how much more flexibility and
savings could be achieved by allowing shorter interface IDs. Without
imposing the restriction in RFC 3513 Section 4, and without increasing
privacy concerns. No?

Bert

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:32:44 +0200

> imposing the restriction in RFC 3513 Section 4, and without increasing

I think this greatly underestimates the practical impact of shortening
the IID. In reality /64 is an architectural boundary, even if in theory
it isn't. I don't believe that revisiting this is realistic. And I don't
believe it is in the least necessary. (This point really concerns
draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt, not the current draft.)

    Brian

---

From: Roger Jorgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:21:26 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Up to now, what has been investigated is what IPv6 can bring to the 
> network. I think another interesting approach is to start from a universal 
> numbering space and investigate what IPv6 could bring to it (with the 
> current technology or not) and to all its constituents. May be the way to 
> understand how to deploy IPv6 faster instead of selling it slowly?

This is a completly different discussion and IPv6 is just one of many 
tools available. Problem is, are no use in trying to create lots of funky 
services if the communication wont work...  and no one (almost) want to 
use time and money on getting the communication to work without a service 
using it.

-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              |
[email-masked]        | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no      | [email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:50:47 +0200

At 08:32 20/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>In reality /64 is an architectural boundary, even if in theory
>believe it is in the least necessary.

Dear Brian,
i am afraid this is orthogonal:
- "In reality /64 is an architectural boudary", means it is because of the 
practice, common thinking, etc.
- "I don't believe that revisiting this is realistic", means such 
revisiting would come from a proposition.

You cannot impeach a new practice. One of the rules of network design is 
"whatever is possible to try and is fun or brings money or worries to 
someone will be used". But you can certainly propose ways towards a better 
(network wise) support of such new practices. I suppose that you refer to 
/64 in what we could name the "legacy" environment (the way the Internet is 
today). Now think of a totally different approach of the Internet (we can 
actually support 6 full ones with the /3 blocs) where a user could get far 
less InterfaceIDs (and be happy with it) because for example the routing 
system and ganularity would be different, or hardware would change, or NGN, 
or MGN, or etc.

jfc

---

From: Roger Jorgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:27:21 +0200 (CEST)

--

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:19:58 +0200

>use time and money on getting the communication to work without a service

I am not sure I understand your comment. I am talking of IPv6 support of 
the universal numbering space, not of other tools. Problem IMHO is to 
understand where regidity is useful and where it impeaches solutions people 
would need to put your time and money into? I am always against exclusive 
and exclusion, whatever their good reasons, when this is possible. All the 
more in techniics and innovation. Just says that.

I see advantages in having /48 /56 /64 etc. thresholds in rates. Not really 
in technics. But I certainly see the technical con/pros why to use these 
threeshold, the same I see advantages in /128 and in InterfaceID Grids.

Or did I misread your comment?
Thank you.
jfc