Re: the race to the bottom problem

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Sun, 08 November 2020 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1581810f94=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 86C9B3A09D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:59:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 I2_7gR0TyZK3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB583A09EC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:59:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1604865576; x=1605470376; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type; bh=GEMYKAPkcIH2T8Mfw4nBTezwXpzb2rC0xo wVZyuQ4X8=; b=RwU/WPhcHADSjULqTQnk0p8umkiy5GQxpzprNGodJZcNDe3RHe S6oPZG/5rtpfkLPnThX2/K9euVYvyWNApXU1+OMem+aNEZsdi4gmDsqV3DseNvyi v2ongtqh6sDfs5tcuc6x4DLZVTBhsNDbVBRN4/v5iVFzLXnIlOo3a3qRs=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Sun, 08 Nov 2020 20:59:36 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Sun, 08 Nov 2020 20:59:36 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.141] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000458092.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Nov 2020 20:59:35 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:88f0:28ca:9d5e:dbcd
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.141]
X-MDArrival-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 20:59:35 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=1581810f94=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.42.20101102
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 20:59:35 +0100
Subject: Re: the race to the bottom problem
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <A4C90308-2D7E-4FCF-B815-5624BD527737@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: the race to the bottom problem
References: <60a15726-ff04-a202-4df9-79a6c6f33540@foobar.org> <99B762B0-0370-4B5B-9075-F688284D614A@fugue.com> <190c5cf3-9034-4e38-235c-620ecd916750@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr0xnWqFT8PSLxQfF8VnSqX72QEcUv7jt9KHdmZ2Mj=D5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0xnWqFT8PSLxQfF8VnSqX72QEcUv7jt9KHdmZ2Mj=D5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3687713975_1171378137"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/38qktUsco-hwzXP-2wblLXl1iLI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 19:59:41 -0000

It is IPv4-mind-set problem.

 

The solution is not to change that in standards. Otherwise, everytime operators decide to do something against standars, we change them again? The solution is to ensure that they missleaded operators get trained.

 

Fortunatelly the 29% is going lower and lower. ISPs are learning with the time (the survey is always open, so I keep measuring changes in the market).

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/11/20 2:36, "ipv6 en nombre de Lorenzo Colitti" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> escribió:

 

On Sun, 8 Nov 2020, 08:24 Nick Hilliard, <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

this is the problem: I did read it, just like I've read through all the 
other threads on this topic over the last several years. There was a 
repeat of the usual speculation, generalisation and echo-chamber 
mechanics which have characterised this discussion at the ietf since 
more-or-less forever.

You said: "we’ve already seen clear pressure to race to the bottom".

So I politely ask you again: please provide citations to data.  Then we 
can have a discussion.

 

Ok, I'll bite. Once. :-)

 

Here's some data:

 

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-v6ops-4.pdf

 

says that 29% of survey responses says the LAN prefix size is /64. This is despite pretty much every IETF and RIR document saying that ISPs should assign more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.