RE: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

["Manfredi, Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L 

> When you say "IoT", I think about my cellphone and all of its
> associated devices. Or, my home router and all of the addressable
> devices in my home. Giving each of them a /64 then allowing them
> to portion their /64s internally as they see fit (e.g., subnetting
> to longer prefixes) would not lead to NAT AFAICT.

True, Fred, but you have posited "giving each of them a /64," presumably by your ISP. I'm saying instead, you create a mobile hotspot with your smartphone, and your smartphone is only provided with a single /64. Now you need to provide routes to each device behind the smartphone, which can be aggregated from the smartphone's /64. Or similarly, any number of IoT devices, each provided with a /64, but each of them needing to create multiple subnets.

No matter what type of privacy or temporary addresses you use, a hard /64 boundary, without a NAT option, will prevent you from be able to aggregate routes. Any expansion at the edges would create a flat address space.

Ultimately, this increasing flat address space will become limiting, IPv6 or not.

Bert