On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What you do in your network is your business. If it works for you - which we know it does - I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when someone tells me that OS code needs to change because some operator thinks that "we give this network a /120 subnet makes sense because that matches the /24 we use IPv4, and we should be free to do that".
users do not notice, except when device programmers break things. i am
a host operator, and i do not need classfulness. slaac is nice in small
lans, and the /64 id is fine for the slaac niche.
Please think about the arguments in RFC 7934. If some misguided operator assigns your device exactly one IPv6 address, that hugely constrains what the device can do and how well it does it. And I do think that users notice when their network is flaky.
> And it is absolutely inappropriate to change this nowin given that the /64
> boundary has been the standard for the last 20 years.
the other week you were saying i should be patient and we could change
it in another decade from now. now you say forever, it's cast in
concrete.
Sorry, let me clarify: it is inappropriate to change that now *in this document*. As I said elsewhere, the IETF and 6man absolutely have the ability to change the standard, but it should follow the proper process: write a draft, get consensus, update whatever RFC RFC 4291bis eventually becomes. I'm not saying we need to wait a decade.
(I do also happen to think that it would be better if we waited a decade before changing this, because we're only 5 or so years into large-scale deployment that will hopefully last at least 3 or 4 decades. However, I don't expect many people to agree with me on that, so I'm not trying to make that argument here.)
well, we are breaking that concrete, have broken it for years, and it's
time 6man wakes up, smells the coffee, and gets with reality.
What you do in your network is your business. If it works for you - which we know it does - I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when someone tells me that OS code needs to change because some operator thinks that "we give this network a /120 subnet makes sense because that matches the /24 we use IPv4, and we should be free to do that".