IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE2312896F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 swLM4LJDU7bE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA06126C26 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v52JUpwJ058237; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:52 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v52JUiC5058172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:44 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:42 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:30:43 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Thread-Topic: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Thread-Index: AQHS26olAbwdN6IbFk+uhX2pi2Ws/qISErGAgAAFyYCAAAZ9gIAAE+sA//+ZrfCAAJtJgP//i6kg
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:30:43 +0000
Message-ID: <2c496b044bc941bda1abd8f5662c5224@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <20170602145655.msfjw35qhoev4sm2@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr3gqFgq3dxFaBEV++q5cgx1AHzFLGRJ50DYJjVE69C7iA@mail.gmail.com> <f2260ee557014429a1fef32de040547b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <C6696427-E3BD-4C5A-9A2F-A979CE063C45@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <C6696427-E3BD-4C5A-9A2F-A979CE063C45@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2X14EDr-YswRqKD0Qe7qUfSiqYQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:30:54 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt

> I have reluctantly come to believe that service providers MUST have
> the ability to force their economy class subscribers into artificially
> small allocations, so they can charge premium prices for larger ones
> drawn from the same functionally limitless supply at equivalent cost.

Interesting way to put it, somewhat negative, but in essence I agree. Another less negative way to put it is that your cheap subscribers, those only requesting a single /64, can provide low cost service to many, many other devices.

This responds also to Fred's point, of being "given" many /64 addresses from the ISP. It would be far cheaper and far more convenient to *not* have to go to the trouble of requesting dozens or more other /64s, from your ISP.

> I once believed IPv4/NAT was about preserving scarce number resources.
> I now think that was wrong. It was always about optimizing rents across
> differing classes of subscribers even when the extracted resource on
> which the rents are derived is practically unlimited. In this one
> respect, IPv6 is no different than IPv4.

Complete agreement. It's democratization. Users can do their own thing. Just like they do with IPv4 NAT. This need doesn't go away with IPv6, unless we create a police force that guarantees everyone a /48, which would then further put to the lie the idea of this super vast IPv6 address space.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email