IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> Wed, 27 March 2024 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
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 6CEA8C14F60E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=forwardingplane.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dQomQUt_rUwM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x2c.google.com (mail-oa1-x2c.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51720C14F604 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2c.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-221822a7dc7so3442618fac.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forwardingplane.net; s=google; t=1711554708; x=1712159508; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mCW1JHtEVPbmvXqOTPxre+wMApn7oSo6YDnFogYccdM=; b=wCzIEz5m2i/bQJAAdElL9p7TS2/FOLK3/uzMYr1htHyOP6G3KptqHy7KfdAZ01Isve hIkuauSUMp0llufZEYLW0o3ATydW0sbaJsMYD6shLq59NM7q6WU+lKNG6wqpFJ7bBQn7 l1I0u8IFWOB0l02zwLKyf6aye0z31yHAplres=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711554708; x=1712159508; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mCW1JHtEVPbmvXqOTPxre+wMApn7oSo6YDnFogYccdM=; b=hdSnPlXKqhybRaNrhGzwFVxaMArJYQbPbFotwwUyOe6OW0jIyIoYZkluVQhu5MS4up BTOhRS9zjqlSXWzLFgGQv1jB8WzP2CF4afv8Hx8x5uBX+h4QgHALLbb1QxcToDXo8SUk beSezLhL3YqTTyf6saVH2IiyFEEbOPsEhXn7NgbxvWzgZzvk/Z96P9mJ8X4AMaEJvk9v ysD9Ff2lCutV2Fs/qYPvOlRtK0EBTs5nQbCEw3p6WN1U8GfQczYrKl8dUof1MfF9zuwB 8yOkvg1sbKa6ka1SCpia74OGrizsu0ckj7NrrQRXGA3dKR4xWgHcnRGbg/o2c6wv5UN/ fLRQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWSBPptpNS0u9Tw/B6ID6gz8meVIvBIwSeyI2BJw8Sas0hoJAMyRZ9pKH47lZNuy/QTJCxd4pol6X8I8dAS
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyP8dUbNVyGYgLRL141R6gakeg5LW70G3eDb3XUAzbXZ8qBGkZ+ BlbN0AoB2mLFDblmdEWihrOVwrdMLzeva2naHGnUKijD2f7izz554Fjj+cwh9PSOwPC0Ao5L52W 2SpyKy9ZvmpkDMlbJ476uqlXEbAIj4nnBOBu1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHKvNylPLafPyhEPFIc8DbqkiJcGL9NuMyYEP9vC+b8dnU09WfuuP69Qv8SnwP3vdkf5K4qMlktygeJz+DHV4g=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9d86:b0:229:ec85:188f with SMTP id pv6-20020a0568709d8600b00229ec85188fmr34237oab.46.1711554708596; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADmxuPF1AReQCSY13HjqXE+8Jofy_uoo1wmnzs8+whG7Tdc+UQ@mail.gmail.com> <836E3A12-FAAF-4C19-91A1-322203645AAA@employees.org> <CADmxuPEBXYeTPrJqfPEGaxmUM75iKQx6kfCcpHHjxyekZy0xuQ@mail.gmail.com> <492484.1711516392@dyas> <CAPt1N1=8B17ab6-54_L8u5KK1Px5AJ9j8VmTWec0Hp3Dg1OKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=8B17ab6-54_L8u5KK1Px5AJ9j8VmTWec0Hp3Dg1OKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:51:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CACMsEX8H3XM39L0Ov7S3GGREjbkT2Vqrw4tVEbS=83R7aRv9og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b835e0614a662f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2dMysxDGwN6qyygVHeiEnKX8GEg>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:51:53 -0000

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:19 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Are you aware of ISPs that are contemplating single-address-to-the-home or
> charge-per-device? Or is this just speculation based on remembered trauma?
>

I don't know of any ISPs attempting to do a single address per home, but I
have had questions about it in the past. Mostly it was a simple education
issue that is resolved by showing the differences in address space
availability. v4-think is hard to get past when it's all they've known, but
most seem to be really happy to not deal with address conservation issues.

nb


>
> Op wo 27 mrt 2024 om 01:13 schreef Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
>
>>
>> Naoki Matsuhira <matsuhira.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     > I am not a native English speaker and this is the first time I have
>> see the
>>     > word "unilaterally". If the meaning according to the
>> English-Japanese
>>     > dictionary is correct, I feel that this is the reason why there are
>>     > opinions against adoption. How about that.
>>
>> unilaterally in this context means that I can do something without someone
>> else's permission.
>>
>> In particular, end-users have been able to "deploy" NAT44 on their
>> desktops/laptops in order to get their VMs or containers "online" without
>> permission from the (network) administrators.
>>
>> At one point (1997), incumbent telco ISP thought that they would deploy
>> PPPoE
>> to every single desktop in the home, charging more for each connection.
>> People said, "screw you" and put up a NAT44 on their own.  This became the
>> norm as home routers came out and people installed them ad-hoc, and then
>> ISPs
>> deployed them as a matter of course.
>>
>> We are risk the same price gouging behaviour in IPv6.
>> Yet, I support adoption of the document, although I would prefer to
>> create a
>> new WG for it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email