Subject: RE: Thoughts on draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt"Michel Py" <[email-masked]>, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:47:17 -0700

I have to say that jj's post is a fresh approach to this, and I welcome
it. Someone has told me recently that kre and myself arguing endlessly
about the issue reminded him of Karpov and Kasparov playing the same
game 20 times, with some minor variants past the 50th move, and always
coming to the same result: draw.

> 1) The u bit only makes sense if we keep the 64-bit boundary,
> so we must keep the 64-bit boundary just in case we one day
> figure out how to use the u bit. This argument should be
> removed because even Michael Py states that it is a red
> herring. I.e., even Michael Py states that the strength of
> his argument for keeping the 64-bit boundary does not rest
> on the possible uses of the u bit.

I need to make clear that I do *not* represent the opinion of the heirs
of GSE by any means. I am in the same lack of feedback darkness about
the future use of the 'u' bit than this WG is about prefixes longer than
/64.
So, by trying to guess the meaning of silence, we should not forget that
there probably are lots of people there that still have strong feelings
about this.

In other words: I have tried to be intellectually unbiased about the 'u'
bit issue, but please take my opinion for what's it's worth, which is
basically that I don't give a hoot to it; I don't want my words to be
interpreted as the opinion of multihomers. I can lead the horse to the
water but I can't make it drink.

That being said, allow me to renew my position that is the -09 should be
shipped.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:48:27 +0700

Date:        Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:47:17 -0700
    From:        "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Someone has told me recently that kre and myself arguing endlessly
  | about the issue reminded him of Karpov and Kasparov playing the same
  | game 20 times, with some minor variants past the 50th move, and always
  | coming to the same result: draw.

There's probably something in that...

  | So, by trying to guess the meaning of silence, we should not forget that
  | there probably are lots of people there that still have strong feelings
  | about this.

I disagree.  We should absolutely forget that.   If any of those people
are out there, let them speak for themselves, rather than us just assuming
that surely they must exist.   If someone believes they exist, but aren't
on this list, then send a message to them, indicating what is being discussed
and invite a reply.

But let's actually look for real opinions, rather than rehashed third
hand accounts of what some unknown other person's opinion just might be.

kre

---

From: David Terrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:35:34 -0700

>   | there probably are lots of people there that still have strong feelings

Silence indicates [whatever I want to happen] :)

> hand accounts of what some unknown other person's opinion just might be.

I'd rather aggregate all my ptp links into a single /64 than some
notable fraction of a /(64-48).  As a user, I would file bugs against
any vendor that prohibited me from doing so.  As such, I'd say that
codifying a hard requirement for /64 is contrary to what I would
use, EUI-64 not withstanding.  Clearly autoconfig and EUI-64 and
whatnot all require /64s, and I don't have any issue with that.  I
even don't mind requiring /119s (rfc 2526).  But /64?  Yuck.  Makes
a big hole in my aggregation.

-- 
David Terrell            | "I went into Barnes and Noble to look for a 
Prime Minister, Nebcorp  | book on A.D.D., but I got bored and left." 
[email-masked]             | - Benjy Feen
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:52:13 +0200

My humble opinion on this matter:

- Use a /64 on a link where multiple hosts could reside (ethernet,
wavelan, ..)
  This ensures that when one needs to renumber to another provider one
doesn't get a smaller prefix.
  And autoconfigure can work in this setup.

- Use EUI-64 where possible
  Makes it easier to autoconfigure.
  But don't hesitate to use anything else if you really want to.
  It's your /64, *you* have to manage it, it's *your* problem.
  Also note that at a corporation you might not be the only one managing
the network.
  You might go away for some reason and another person has to do the
work then.

- Tunnels which will never be native should use a /127 simply to
conserve space.

And if you really really want to use a /120 on your ethernet, have fun
with it configuring all your boxes.
This does imply that IPv6 stack implementors shouldn't limit, software
_could_ warn though that it breaks stuff.
Ofcourse one could setup DHCPv6 or something to serve /120's...

Actually, that subnet is your problem, not that of the rest of the
world.
If it doesn't work, foo on you ;)

Ofcourse these are my opinions.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:59:34 +0300 (EEST)

>   You might go away for some reason and another person has to do the

Nobody is disputing this in the case of many hosts (e.g. LAN).
 
> - Tunnels which will never be native should use a /127 simply to

Did you read the draft?
 
> Ofcourse one could setup DHCPv6 or something to serve /120's...

Nobody has suggested they're going to do this.
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords